1919-11-06

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a certificate of the election and return of John Wilfred Kennedy, Esq., for the electoral district of Glengarry and Stormont.
QUESTIONS.	;
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



ARTHUR LAPIERRE.

Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	What are the names of the two policemen who entered on September 30, 1918, the residence of the conscript, Arthur Lapierre, No. 3157100?
2.	Who had commissioned these two policemen to look for the said Arthur Lapierre?
3.	Have the said policemen made a report? If so, what is the date of the report and to whom was it made?


Hon. Mr. MACLEAN (for Major-General Mewburn):: 1, 2 and 3. There is no record at militia headquarters. If information is furnished as to the district concerned and the place where action was taken, the necessary inquiries will be made.



THE SUGAR SUPPLY.

['Ninety per cent of the males are returned soldiers. Yet we have to meet that sort of thing which has been bandied about on the streets of Canada here and there by every man who is disgruntled. If hon. gentlemen had been on that committee and had heard some of the evidence in regard to the men who are being taken care of, whose disease cannot be diagnosed and whose condition was described by witnesses who had seen them, they would have heard the most human story they ever listened to. Such stories were listened to by that committee in the most human way, not with frivolity and lightness but with compassion in their hearts for those poor fellows. One witness described such a man as that in the way in which I am describing him to you now: " I cannot tell you what the disease was; the man was-what shall I say?-burned out; his energy gone, his mind gone, his physical being strong, but burned out- The hon. member who would, by this amendment abolish the only way in which we are taking care of such men to-day, is doing a questionable service even to the returned soldier or to this country. I am opposed to the amendment because it says that the report should be referred back, because in sending that report back, you are sending it back for the purpose of doing a certain thing only and taking no notice of the other plans proposed. Canada in regard to her treatment of the returned soldier leads the world, as is ad-\n\nmitted everywhere, and people from the United States and even from England are coming here to see how this country is carrying on this work. Yet with all the flippancy and ease in the world, some few bon. members, regardless of the responsibility they bear to their constituents, Or to their country or to the returned soldier, come here and suggest the annihilation of a splendid machine that has been set up to care for those invalided soldiers and to enable them to help themselves. For that reason, if for no other, I say that no hon. gentleman in this House can possibly support a proposition that will wipe out a thing that has cost the country so much money and has been of such inestimable benefit to the soldiers, who deserve the best treatment that Canada can give them.\nOn motion of Mr. Middlebro the debate was adjourned.\nOn the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean, the House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.\nFriday, November 7, 1919.']
Hon. Mr. SIFTQN:: *
1.	Yes.
2.	Approximately $848,000 on basis of cost plus 7J per cent.
3.	Approximately $2,478,250 on same basis of cost plus 74 per cent.
4.	No.



Mr. McLEAN (Royal):: 1.	What wharves in the counties of Queen's and King's, New Brunswick, have been transferred to the Federal Government hy the Provincial Government of New Brunswick, and on what dates were the said transfers made?
2.	Is the Minister of Public Works aware that the officers of his department have reported that many of the said wharves require repairs to be made as soon as possible?
3.	If so. when will the said wharves be repaired?


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: I.	Queen's County:-
Name of wharf.	High water, low water or graded.	Parish.	Date of Provincial Order in Council transferring.
Akerleys				June 4, 1919
Washademoak Lake.			
Armstrongs		H and L W...		July 2, 1919
Washademoak Lake.			
			
Washademoak Lake.			
	L W.	u	May 1, 1919
St. John River.			
Chipman				June 4, 1*919
Salmon River.			
Coles Island		H and L W			July 2, 1919
Washademoak Lake			
Colwells		L W...		June 4, 1919
Washademoak Lake.			
Cumberland Bay		L W....		July 2, 1919
Grade Lake.			
Douglas Harbour				" 2, 1919
Fox's		L W.		May 1, 1919
St. John River.			
	L W		" 1, 1919
St. John River.			
Humphreys				June 4, 1919
Washademoak Lake.			
			May 1, 1919
St John River.			
	L W.		" 1, 1919
	L W.		" l, 1919
St. John River. ,			
	L W		" 1, 1919
Washademoak Lake.			

2.	Yes.
3.	Transfer has not been accepted by the [DOT]Federal Government.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MoLEAN (Royal):
1.	How many men enlisted in New Brunswick in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces?
2.	How many went overseas?
3.	How many went to France?
4.	How many were killed or died of wounds?
5.	How many are receiving pensions, and what is the total amount of said pensions?
6.	How many have received or are now receiving vocational training?
7.	How many have received medical assistance or treatment in hospitals?
8.	How many have received outside medical treatment from the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment ?
9.	What amount of gratuity has been paid to officers, non-commissioned officers and men in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces enlisted in New Brunswick?

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day
Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere):: Before the Orders of the Day are called, may I ask the Government who is paying for the structure on Connaught square in front of the post office? It is very ungainly, lacking any architectural character, and is very expensive into the bargain.
SIR GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister): I have no positive information, but I understand that the cost of the structure ds assumed by the parities who are interested in making the Victory Loan a success.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker,-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Thomas Vien: May I ask a further question?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I did not hear the question submitted by the hon. member because my attention was diverted at the moment. It is not such a question as should) be submitted on the Orders of the Day.


Thomas Vien: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that it will be dmposeible to obtain an answer as to the expenditure of that money if-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member has Jiis remedy by putting the question on the Order Paper.


THE NEW PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I see in the public
press this morning an announcement of an assuring character that Parliament will meet next session in the new buildings. May we have a confirmation of that report from the Minister of Public Works?


Arthur Lewis W. Sifton: I regret to say that it is absolutely impossible to confirm that, or most of the statements that appear in the public press.


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 Wednesday, November 5.
Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, the re-establishment of the soldier in civil life presents to this House and to the country a problem the gravity of which, I believe, is fully appreciated by every hon. member of this Parliament. The report of the special committee has been laid on the table of the House for the consideration and the possible approval of the members. I venture to say, Sir, that every member of that special committee felt that a double obligation was placed upon his shoulders when he was asked to take part in the consideration of this matter,-a double obligation because we recognize that we owe a duty not only to the State but also to those men who served with distinction to themselves and honour to Canada in the struggle overseas. I am sure I speak only the truth when I say that every member on that committee approached his task free from any political bias and with the utmost sincerity, and devoted the weeks which were spent in considering the subject in an earnest endeavour to deal with it in the public interest and in the interest of the ..soldier himself. In making this statement in regard to the members of the committee, I believe, Sir, that I can go further and assert that every member of the House, whether he sits on your right or on your left, has been actuated by the same motive ever since this question first arose in Canada. I believe that the members of this House are really and sincerely anxious to fulfil that double obligation which they owe to the country and to the soldier, and to do their duty as representatives of the people


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Wesley Edwards: There never has been a time since we have had to consider the returned soldier problem that any hon. gentleman in this House has treated the request of a soldier with anything hut the greatest respect and the greatest sympathy. The hon. member for North Simcoe did not see fit to allow me the opportunity of putting that question to him. It was his right under the rules of the House to deny me that privilege.
But, he did not stop there. The hon. gentleman knowing that I could not make a reply at that time, took it upon himself to take a nasty fling-an unwarranted fling- at me. Mr. Speaker, I have had some tilts

1S01
with bon. members in this House on former occasions. I have enjoyed them; sometimes I have got the worse of it and sometimes the other fellow has. But there is no hon. gentleman in this House who will say of me that after I have made a speech in the House, which perhaps hit some person a little hard, I have got out of the House and stayed out when he was trying to give me my medicine.
I may not have had the opportunity to distinguish myself on the fields of battle in Europe. I may not have felt disposed to cry, as did the hon. member for North Sim-coe because he was not awarded a decoration for his wonderful, chivalrous conduct, Ibut I will never run away from the scrap, anyway. I do not want to refer here to what those connected with me have done in the war. I have no right to make any boast along that line at all. I had only one son; he served in the war and stayed there until the war was over. I have one very near relative who is sleeping his last sleep in France and another very near relative who is so seriously disabled that he will carry his disability with him as long as he lives. But whatever I and those connected with me have done, let me say there was none of my name, none of my relations of military age but who went overseas and! did their bit, be it big or little. II realize that what I or those connected with me have done in the war is nothing as compared with the sacrifice that many hon. gentlemen who sit in this House have made. I have never, since the war started, cast any reflection on any man who went overseas. I have never felt disposed to do so, but I may say this to the hon. member for North Sirncoe, that his conduct has more than once been brought up on the floor of this House and discussed- not by myself. He who resented some reflections on his own conduct-and if he felt they were unjust he had a perfect right to resent them-should be the last man to rise in his place in this House and cast aspersions on any person else. The hon. member for North Simcoe is wanting in those principles which constitute a real man.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order; I will have to ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement.


John Wesley Edwards: I will withdraw it at your request, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for North Simcoe is lacking in due appreciation and regard for those principles which constitute a real man. The hon. member for North Simcoe never hesitated at any time from his place to asperse the character and
reputation of hon. gentlemen in this House. He has, somehow or other, felt that he had a free license to do what he liked or what he willed with any other hon. gentleman, but no person must say anything reflecting at all upon the hon. member for North Simcoe, and no person must differ from the hon. member for North Simcoe on any matter that comes up. That is about the attitude of that hon. gentleman.
The hon. member for North Simcoe stated that half the members on this side of the House owed their seats to the soldier vote. He modified .that a moment later by saying that one-quarter of the members on this side of the House owed their seats to the soldier vote. I went into that fully some .time ago. Any person can take the records of the last election for himself and if he does so he will find, as I found, that there are only half a dozen members all told in this House who can be said to owe. their seats to the soldier vote. The election of 1917 was a very peculiar one. It was an election differing from any other that ever took place in Canada by reason of the enormous majorities rolled up for or against the Government candidates. The civil vote decided the elections for all excepting two or three members of the House. The hon. gentleman's statement in that regard is wrong, just as his statement in regard to .the members of this House jeering and sneering at the soldiers was in my estimation, a slander on the members of the House. The hon. member for North Simcoe is not apparently disposed to be fair.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Currie) attempted to make capital out of a very innocent remark made by the chairman of the committee, the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, to the effect that if this House saw fit in its wisdom to vote the sums asked by the soldiers, running into the hundreds of millions, the Administration would feel that some other government would have to raise that money. That was in no sense a threat-it was merely a com-monsense statement. The explanation given so very concisely and fully by the minister was accepted by the mover and seconder of the amendment but was not accepted by the hon. member (Mr. CuTrie) why? Because that hon. gentleman did not want to accept the truth, did not want to accept an explanation that was reasonable and fair; he was anxious to exert an influence on the mind of the returned soldier. He was .anxious, if possible, to create the impression that the members of the House, particularly the Government,

were not -disposed to deal fairly with the soldiers, or to do all that could be done in their interest,-that was the object, and the only object, of the hon. member. In that instance as in others, he has -shown himself to be -in a class by himself.
Now, for a few -moments, allow -me to refer to one or -two of the things which the hon. member (Mr. Currie) demands. Speaking in this House in the month of September he came out very flatly and very emphatically in favour of the demand of certain of the returned soldiers for a $2,000 money grant to the men who had been to France, $1,500 for those who had been to- England, and $1,000 to those who had been in -service in Canada. At that time I questioned the hon-. gentleman in regard to his support of that propo-sal, and he was further questioned by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) who asked him if he would make no distinction between the -man who had been away back of the lines -at a clearing station, for instance, -and 'the man who had been right up in- the front line trenches. The hon. gentleman answered emphatically that he would make no distinction whatever, that no distinction should be made, and that any person who would make a distinction should be frowned down. Against that proposal to make grants of $2,000, $1,500 and $1,000 respectively, there is a strong body of opinion, and yesterday we had it from the hon. member for North Simco-e (Mr. Currie) himself, that the returned soldiers are now willing to modify that demand and that they are willing to accept-even Mr. Flynn for instance-$1,000 for those who went to France, $500, I think, for those who went to England, and $300 for those who stayed in Canada. The hon. gentleman would even accept a smaller sum than that according to his statement yesterday. Yet when Mr. Flynn gave evidence before the committee he characterized the members of that committee in the very strongest and most discourteous language because they could not see eye to eye with him with respect to the granting of his demands; and the language used by Mr. Flynn before the committee, and used by him on platform after platform, was endorsed in its entirety by the hon. member for North Simcoe, who was scarcely less rabid in his language and denunciation of the Government and of the committee in refusing these requests than Mr. Flynn himself. Now the hon. gentleman has come down off that perch and he would be willing to accept a very much smaller sum-in fact he

would be willing to modify the original demand to the extent of not giving anything at all to those members of the forces who had seen service in Canada for a less period than six months. What has brought about this change? We were told in the committee, and on the floor of this House, that it was mere camouflage to say we were not able to raise the money to meet these demands. Why have these men modified their demands if it is not that they realize, as they did not realize before, the impossibility of acceding to the demands that were originally made and which would have entailed an enormous expenditure upon this country running up to approximately $1,-000,000^000.
Might I call attention to a difference in the attitude of the hon. member for North Simcoe in regard to gratuities and pensions. He was very emphatic in- saying that no distinction in regard to an extra gratuity should be made, but that all who served in France for instance, should receive the same amount regardless of rank or length of service; but when it comes to pensions, " I insist," he says, "on a distinction being made-the pensions should be granted according to rank." The member for North Simcoe holds a rank higher than that of a private. He is perfectly satisfied to accept $2,000 along with a private; but when it comes to the matter of pensions, the hon. gentleman would make a very emphatic distinction between pensions for the private and pensions for the officer. He argues that you should not make any distinction in regard to an extra gratuity because the private requires as much to live on as does the officer; but when it comes to granting pensions then, of course, a private can live on a great deal less than a brigadier-general; he says: You Can, and you should, make a distinction there.
I desire now to state the position which I take in regard to one or two of the main points in this report. I wish to say most emphatically that with me the granting of the request made by certain of the soldiers is not entirely a question of our ability to raise the money. Let me put that in another way-and I may say that I speak only for myself in this matter, I am not voicing, or thinking of voicing, the sentiments of the other members of the committee-if we had not a dollar of debt in this Dominion, if we could raise unlimited millions, I would not favour acceding to the request for an extra gratuity regardless of disability to all the -soldiers w'ho have re-

turned from the front. It has been argued that' we should give an extra grant in order to tide men over the present winter. Let us examine that argument for a moment. A man who returned from France got a discharge on the 1st January, 1919 He was entitled to draw and did draw six months' pay; he had from the first of January until the beginning of the winter to supplement or add to that pay and thus to provide for the coming winter. I do not see any particular reason for giving an extra gratuity to that man.
Then, take the case of the man who was discharged a month ago. On the first of October he started to draw six months' pay, covering October, November, December, January, February and March. Well, what justification can there be for adding to that gratuity in order to put that man through this winter? I am in entire accord with the granting of the six, five or four months' gratuity to men who have been discharged from the army. The reason for that has been stated: it is to enable the returned soldier to look around and to give him an opportunity to place himself in some work that will be congenial to him rather than force him to take any kind of work that offers In making that provision this Parliament has dealt more 'generously with the Canadian soldiers than any other country which was engaged in the war has dealt with its soldiers.
Now, I will divide the soldiers into two classes. First, there are those iwho are fortunate enough to return to Canada one hundred per cent fit physically and mentally. I do not think that this country should add to thf gratuity which these men have already received. Secondly, we have those soldiers who are disabled, and no matter to what extent we place a mortgage on this country it is the duty of this House [DOT]and the duty of the country to look after those men who have returned to Canada and who are not one hundred per cent fit to look after themselves. I believe that that is a position which will appeal to many of the returned soldiers themselves. I believe that when the returned soldiers have had an opportunity to study and to understand this report, that position will appeal to the vast majority of them, as I believe it will appeal to the people generally, because it is a fair, a just, and a reasonable position to take.
Requests have been made that we should give special consideration to university students whose courses were broken in upon through their service overseas. Some
hold very strong views on that point; some are very strongly in favour of giving special assistance to these young men.. I must say, Sir, that I do not hold that view; I hold just as strongly to the view that they should not receive special recognition. What is the definition of "student"? I take it that the request of the veterans is based upon a definition of student as a man who is privileged td attend college or university, and that that definition includes all who should be characterized as students. I say that any man is a student who is serving an apprenticeship or acquiring knowledge from some person who possesses knowledge which he does not possess. The word "student" should apply as well to the man who is learning to be a plumber or a blacksmith or a carpenter as to the man who is attending university. I repeat that I see no reason why special consideration should be given to these young men who were attending university and whose courses were broken into by reason of the war. On the contrary, students attending a, college or university, as distinguished from those who, in my opinion, should also be classed as students, those who are learning a trade, are in a more fortunate position than the young men who were starting to learn to become plumbers, blacksmiths, or followers of some other trade and had their time broken into on account of going overseas. As a rule, the young man attending college or university who enlisted and went overseas is in a position to obtain by loan the money that he requires to put himself through his college course; he can obtain it more easily and more readily than the man who, in other walks of life, is a student just as much as he who attends university. I take, therefore, very strong exception to making any special preferential grant to young men who return physically fit and who have their courses in college or university broken into by their service overseas.


Mr. COOPER:: In the suggestions made to this committee, vocational training was [DOT]asked for on behalf of the returned men in all the walks of life that the hon. member speaks of, up to the age of twenty-one. The reference was not specifically to university students only.


John Wesley Edwards: I think the suggestion was made by some of those who appeared before the committee that special consideration should be given to university [DOT]students whose courses had been broken

into; that special consideration should be given to the medical practitioner -whose practice had been disturbed bn account of his going overseas. I take exception to lany special recognition of university students; if you are going to assist them we should similarly assist any other young returned man who is learning a trade.
The report recommends that consideration be given to the student whose course was broken in upon and who has come back physically disabled or unable to carry on, not one hundred per cent fit. That is right. Let me .make myself perfectly clear. What I take exception to is the application of special grants to those men who have come back to Canada one hundred per cent fit, whether they are students or not. In regard to the others, I repeat that we must make provision for them, whether they are students or not. If they are not one hundred per cent fit to take care of themselves; if they are fifteen or twenty-five per cent disabled, it is the duty of the State to assist them, at least to the extent of their disability, in getting along in life and making a place for themselves. That is the general position which I take; that is the general position taken by this report. The report does divide the returned men into two classes; it states that men who have returned one hundred per cent fit should receive no gratuity other than that which has already been granted, but that those who are more or less disabled should receive extra consideration from this Parliament and the country.
Another proposition was that in regard to housing. That is dealt with by the report, and reasons are given why we cannot agree to the suggestions made in that regard.
The report does not turn down the question of insurance; the report recognizes that that is a matter requiring expert and technical study, and the members of the committee felt that they did not possess the necessary expert and technical knowledge to place before the House any concrete scheme of insurance for the returned soldier. The report does not throw the question to one side, but recommends that this House give its consideration to that matter through the appointment of men who will probably be able to bring down some scheme which will be workable. Those, I think, are the main propositions which were brought before the committee.
What are some of the proposals for raising the money to meet these demands, for after all we have to consider that phase of the question. Whether or not we can raise

the money to meet the demands is one thing we must consider as well as whether the demands should be met as being reasonable and fair. The report sets out very fully the financial position of our country, and I think it shows very clearly that we cannot meet these demands even if we were disposed to do so. Even if we conceded that the demands were just and right and should be met if we had the money, we have not the money, and no way -which has been suggested of obtaining the money is at all feasible. Certain suggestions were made for raising the money. I believe Mr. Flynn suggested lotteries, a scheme which was practically endorsed by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. 'Currie) yesterday,, as a means of raising the money required. Mr. Flynn also suggested that the Government pass a law allowing theatres- to run on Sundays, and that they iput a special tax on those Sunday theatres and raise the money in that way. I venture to say that only a very small proportion of the people of Canada would endorse either one of those suggestions as a means of raising the necessary money, and -also that a very large proportion of the returned soldiers themselves would resent such money-raising schemes. The suggestion was- made by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. H. A. Mackie) that w-e -place a tax upon all non-combatants. He referred to the number of foreigners in this country and, I think, but I am not certain that I understood him correctly, that he placed the number -at 360,000.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: I stated that there was a population of 360,000 foreigners in Western Canada, but that II did not know what would be the male population amongst those, and that I put a question to the House last year in that connection and had received no information.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not know at this moment how many foreigners there are in this country. I am not, however, saying that the matter of placing a special tax upon those who were able to go to the war, but who for some reason or another (their foreign birth or otherwise) took no part in it, has not some merit, although the question is a complex one. This- is a young country, and we must look to the effect that any tax will have upon our future prospects and prosperity generally. The hon. member did not suggest the amount of that head tax, and I doubt if it would go very far in solving the problem if you did impose any tax upon those who took no part in the war. A further suggestion was made by the hon.

member for Simcoe North (Mr. Currie) as to a means of raising the money., and I was very much struck by this: That the hon. member was not at all enthusiastic about the buiness profits tax or the
12 noon, income tax-his means of deriving a revenue was by an increase in the customs tax. I think I might venture to say that .there would be a great and distinct difference of opinion in regard to that suggestion. The proposition of an increased customs tax coming from a well known free trader like the hon. member for Simcoe North is, of course, very suggestive. I thought at the time that perhaps he was thinking of the manufacturing industry in which he was directly interested, and that when he made his suggestion of a four per cent increase in the customs tax he had the returned soldier less in mind than the particular industry with which he is connected.
Mr. 'McMASTER: He saw also the profits.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not think I am unfair in attributing that business prudence to the hon. member for Simcoe North. Let me make just one further allusion to that hon. member. Ever since this matter has been discussed in the House he has endeavoured to place himself before the public as the champion of the returned soldier. May II say, 'Sir, that in my estimation the returned soldiers are worthy of a better champion? The hon. member did not hesitate from his place in the House yesterday to slander every other hon. member by saying that when the soldiers made requests to this Parliament, they were met with jeers and sneers. There is only one man who on the floor of this House has ever wholesale cast an aspersion upon the returned soldier, and that man is the hon. member for Simcoe North, and he did it when from his place in this House he said in so many words that the soldiers coming back from overseas were arrested, not by the hundreds but by the thousands, for being drunk, and that there *were 4,000 of them incarcerated in Burwash because of their drunken habits. I can read to the House his remarks in that regard which are contained in Hansard. No other member of this House has gone anything like that far; in fact, no other member has cast any aspersion upon the returned soldier. It remains for their champion, the hon. member for Simcoe North, to characterize them as he did and as is reported on the pages of Hansard. No matter whether he was overseas one year or two years or for the whole period of the war,
it does not lie in his mouth to get up in his place in this House and slander the members of this House as he did yesterday. Once more let me say that as the soldier has come back from overseas, there has been no disposition in this House or outside of this House, in the press or. anywhere else, to treat the soldier otherwise than fairly, sympathetically and, indeed, generously. Every member of this House is, I believe, disposed to go just as far in recognizing the soldiers' as the resources of this country will permit. This is not a question to cavil over; it is not a question to cheese-pare over.
The hon. member for North Simcoe may think he is the only man who took part in the war; he may think that he licked the Germans himself, that the war would have been lost but for his efforts, that he is the only person who has a right to express an opinion with regard to the returned soldier, but I want to tell him there are others in this House whose interest in the returned soldier is just as great, and far more sensible than the interest he has displayed. He has taken an attitude in this House and outside of it which is detrimental to the interest of the returned soldier, and which has done the returned soldier harm-not among the members of this House who know the hon. member for North Simcoe, 'but his utterances have left a wrong impression on the minds of many people throughout the country who do not know the hon. member as we know him and who are not in a position to appreciate his worth as we appreciate it. They attach *more importance to his words than his words are entitled to, and some of them no doubt feel when they read what he says that this Parliament is disposed to treat the returned soldier niggardly. I have never seen that disposition on the part of any member of this House or the press of this country.
We must however look at this question from the standpoint not only of the soldier -we owe a duty to him-but of our duty to the people of this country whom we represent in this House. We must consider both sides of the question, and I believe that when the matter is considered by this House thoroughly, as I believe it will be, and considered on its merits without any political bias-and so far we have kept pretty clear of that-we shall arrive at a solution which will be appreciated by the people of the country as a whole and which will be accepted by the great body

of soldiers as the right thing for us to have done.


Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough):: The question which we are now discussing is one of very considerable difficulty. As with all questions of ways and means, it is a serious thing to indulge in the expenditure of a vast sum of money unless we are satisfied that it is necessary. With regard to the committee, I do not think there are two opinions. It was a fine committee; the personal was unexceptionable. They devoted their very best energies to the work and have done the best they could. I do not think 'there is the slightest disposition to feel that these gentlemen are not worthy of every consideration and praise.
This is not a party question. The committee was made up of members from both sides of the House. The whole House is interested in the soldier, and represents an undivided country in that respect. It must be remembered that our army was not a professional army. It was not an army in the old sense that when a soldier accepted the King's shilling he had signed a contract which specified all the terms. The Canadian army was a voluntary army. The men of the Canadian army were actuated by patriotic motives. They were called upon by a most anxious country to rush to the colours and save democracy, to rescue the world from the clutches of the Hun,"and when they were asked bo do that they were told: It is true that many of you have lucrative positions, that you are well established, that your way in life is more or less assured, but go. As Wellington said at Brussels, "Go, not in order, but as if to a fire." Go, he said, because Quatre Bras was in danger. Our country was in danger and we said to our soldiers: "We will look after you and your dependents. We will see that when you come home you are in as good a position, not perhaps as when you left, but in as good a one as we can place you in."
What confronted the returned soldier when he came back? He saw that the people of this country had made vast sums of money while he had lost nearly all he had. I have seen people connected with manufactories who are rolling in wealth notwithstanding the war tax, who have every comfort, and are in a position they never dreamed of before the war. I would suggest that notwithstanding the war tax the Government should take account with them of this increase in wealth. Their business before and after the war should be taken 
into account, and the whole increase in their receipts should be .appropriated for the benefit of the soldier. Those of us who remained at home must expect to divide our assets and the increases which have accrued to us with tlhe men who went to war. It is our duty. It is only fair and right. If therefore it can be established, and it can be easily, that notwithstanding all the war taxation there remains an immense sum that by all moral right should be appropriated for the benefit of the soldier, we should proceed to appropriate it. We only need to look at the simple fact that the luxury in this country is unprecedented. It is not due to what has happened since the war, but to what happened during the war. That I say is one cause of the great discontent among the soldiers, and it is a very reasonable discontent. Vast sums of money were given for patriotic purposes and vast efforts were made in every way by those who remained at home, but there still remain such means as I have referred to that we should use for the benefit of the returned soldier and his dependents. He gave all he had. Did we give all we had? We certainly did not. You will find that it is this that has caused *the discontent. Let there be fair play. When the soldier comes forward and says: "You have not done all you could for the soldier, and we only ask that you take as a basis for aid the need of the returned soldier," I say the soldier is more humane than we are if we refuse. Surely there is not a man in this House who if he saw a soldier in need would not take him into his house and look after him and see that he was cared for, on the basis of honour, not charity. Surely there is not one of us who would not do that, and feel a just pride in being able to do it.
In the same way the country should feel that if there is a single member of that dauntless army that fought in France for the rescue of the world and for our own safety, if there is one soldier or his dependent in actual need, his position should be made right if it meant the expenditure of our last dollar, the -last dollar which we thundered about during the war and the giving of which we now refuse even to think of. If people feel that so much money has been spent that it is difficult to raise a loan, let them try it. Let them proceed to raise a soldiers' loan, and they will find no difficulty in raising it in this country. I venture that opinion unhesitatingly. It is not as though we were borrowing money from outside and were likely to

be refused by creditors who might tell us: "You have borrowed as much as we will lend and your credit is exhausted." No Sir, we are borrowing from our own people; we are turning the money over and over and it is simply a question of bookkeeping. The money all remains in the country. The credit of the country is being assured to those people who are loaning the money, and it is the only limit to their loaning. There is no limit to the money. Now the credit of the country is mortgaged only to the extent of $1,740,000,000, as found by the Minister of Finance, up to September, 1919. It does not compare with the indebtedness per capita of any other country except the United States, who, coming late into the war, did not |inicur the same liabilities as other nations, and who, notwithstanding the magnificent effort they made, nevertheless secured more out of the war than all the world beside. The world on account of the war lies mortgaged at the feet of the United States, and they do not deny it. They are patriotic; they are fair; they are brave; and they are frank. Let us be frank also and let us be fair. When we find in this amendment the simple statement that this matter should be referred, practically at the earnest request of those men to whom we owe so much, for further consideration, what harm is there in the suggestion? What harm is there in the soldiers saying: "You have considered the housing problem, the reestablishment problem and others, but we don't think that you have given us as much as you should have given on the basis of need?" I say again, Mr. Speaker, that on the basis of need we cannot give too much until we have given our last dollar, and I say again that the request embodied in this amendment is reasonable, and the committee should not get huffed about it, notwithstanding the expression of the chairman yesterday. I know no member of the committee who is not absolutely well disposed in this particular and who is likely to get up on his high horse and say that he has considered the whole question and will not deal with it further, or that if you "Throw the matter back in our teeth, we will resign" ! In God's name, have things come to such a pass in this country that when our army returns, the men who were driven to desperation on the field of battle and had to fight as men never fought before, are to find that we can not have a little patience with them and show them some consideration? Even if they were wrong, what about it? Let us be patient with them. Let us consider and re-consider and show them that if we have not the money we have at least the disposition to do all we can for them. Before this committee was formed the dis*-position on the part of many people was to say, "We have done nobly; we have done all we can". In response to the very agitation which is now under consideration a committee was formed and it was found that all that could have been done had not been done. The committee has brought forward further recommendations that are extensive, but it may be that on further inquiry they might find that there were still other things that could be done. It might be possible that the people of the country would he willing to pledge their credit further for a soldiers' loan, if not for $400,000,000, at any rate for $200,000,000. We can have a referendum for whisky, hut we cannot have a referendum for the soldier. I say, let us have a referendum. Do not let the Government resign; do not let them get huffed. Let them say to the people:	"This is a great question; it is a
question that touches our hearts; it touches us on the raw. It excites our tenderest sentiments. We owe a debt of gratitude which we must pay, and iwe want to know if you are ready to go further. If you are, we are prepared also to go on". Let the people of the country speak. Let them speak by means of a referendum, and let them say whether or not they want more to be done for the soldiers. Then we shall have done all that we could do for the soldiers and we can rest in peace But not until then. If there is one soldier or soldier's dependent who remains in need through our neglect, we ought not to lie in bed at night and sleep. Have we, then, like Pharaoh of old, succeeded in hardening our hearts to the reasonable request of splendid men. I do not doubt that the people of the country have done all they knew how to do. But I do not think they have done all that they can do. I do not think that I have done all I can, and I do not think that the people of the country, when they find that there is such a thing as need on the part of the soldier, will refuse to do more. I acquit the committee of any shortcomings. They have done their best and have endeavoured to conserve the country's resources and protect the public. But I say that the public does not wish to be protected to the detriment of the soldier. I say that we have an opportunity of finding out from the people whether or not they are prepared to go to the limit. On the platform I heard orators during the war, time

and again say: "The last man and the last dollar.'' Well, the last man went, but where is the last dollar? Sir, we have now to unbutton our pockets. Many a man feels sore at having to 'spend money. Nevertheless, if he is a true man, he has to gird himself and do his duty. I am a poor man, but 1 am willing to increase the tax even if I have to go and work with a pick by the day to pay it; for I hope that I have enough head and enough heart to realize that if I do not do my duty then I have ceased to be a .man. We owe a great debt to the soldiers. Some soldiers may be obstreperous, some may be riotous, and some exacting. But that is nothing to us. We know that the measure of the requirement is the measure of the soldiers' need, and if the need exists we must respond to it.


Mr. THOMAS FOSTER (York, East):: I realize the seriousness of this report of the committee that has been presented to the House. We know that the members of the committee with all earnestness studied every phase of the situation, received evidence, and exercised their best judgment in coming to a conclusion. However, after their efforts and their summing up of the matter, it still remains for the members of the House to express their views as they see fit. They may not agree with the report; they may see it from other standpoints than those which guided the committee. They might show it by other expenditures; they might feel that, notwithstanding the evidence that was presented, the committee, if it had had further time, might have reached out and receive other evidence that would have thrown greater light on the question as to how much farther it would be possible to go than what has been recommended.
This report that has been presented to the House' involves a serious question. It places all the members of the House on record and it does not matter what view they take or how they present their case, they will not satisfy everybody. It would be utterly impossible to attempt to satisfy all the desires that have been put forward with respect to a large gratuity. It was good judgment to appoint this special committee to consider all phases of the application of the Great War Veterans for a larger gratuity. The committee has given its careful consideration and it has reported against a further gratuity. We realize, as was pointed out by the chairman of the committee yesterday, the enormous expenditures that we have to meet this coming fiscal

year amounting to some $314,000,000. We also know the liberality of the amount that was given by the public throughout the Dominion and which reached the sum of $48,000,000, of which $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 yet remains unexpended and to be further applied.
The fact that we have to spend this enormous amount this year does not to my mind mean that there are no other sources, that there is no other method that can be resorted to and that it is impossible to meet some of the demands that have been made. I would think that with the vast resources of this country, and by giving further consideration to the question, something might still be done. I do not agree with the report in its entirety, and I do not know that I can vote for it; It is recommended by the committee that some $50,000,000 shall be further expended for the purpose of returned soldiers and their dependents. As I understand it, a part of that is to reimburse soldiers and their dependents for the expense of their own passages to this country. Then the committee proposes to give some $9,000,000 to the Imperialists, leaving possibly $40,000,000 to be disbursed in extreme and necessitous cases. The greater part of this amount, as I understand it, is for the purpose of assisting those who may be out of work during this coming winter. The evidence given before the committee showed that at the time it was given there were some thirty thousand returned men out of work. We are now meeting with a long and severe winter, and we may almost assume that that number will be doubled or trebled before we see better weather and an opportunity to earn sufficient money to meet housekeeping requirements. If it is doubled or trebledl it means great hardship this winter. To apply this $40,000,000 as suggested will not, I believe, produce the most beneficial results. It is a nice thing to help out and assist those who may almost be starving but is it the proper thing to hand out to the returned soldiers, or their dependents, or those who require assistance, some $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 in .the way of charity, because, after all, if you give dt in that way it is applying charity? I do not think that is the proper method in dealing with that large amount. Had we not better add to that-and I think *this country can stand it-and make it almost equal to the expenditure for gratuities extending the gratuity somewhat on the same principle we have already applied it? That would mean a possible expenditure of $150,000,000 or $153,000,000.

in offering it as a gratuity and not as a charity you encourage the .man who is going to receive his gratuity to conserve that which he has and to make an effort to get work and to be earning. When you set aside $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 to be given to men who are unemployed, you are encouraging a man not to be over-anxious to get work because he will say: "If I make any application as being out of work, I will ibe taken care of and possibly allowed $15 or $20 a week during my unemployment." It has a tendency to encourage men not to be over-anxious about getting work. It would surely be better to hand out a further gratuity. That might be applied in many ways. It would be applied by a man to maintain his family if 'he were out of work; it would be applied to secure tools, or to start in a small business or in ia great, many ways especially when the returned man was expecting to receive it in the form of a gratuity. I would not administer it exactly as it has been administered in the past. If it were given in a lump sum these men could use the money perhaps to better advantage.


Mr. MORPHY:: In giving gratuities in a lump sum, would t'he hon. gentleman agree with Mr. Flynn's proposal that all other [Government work should stop, that the departments should be abolished and that .the soldiers should be allowed to drift?


Mr. FOSTER:: No, I do not agree that anything should stop, I think these services should go on just the same, even though you give the gratuity. It will have a tendency to encourage men during the coming winter to seek to get work rather than to sit down and say that there are $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 that is going to be applied to us whether we work or not, and we are not going to be too anxious to get work. By extending the gratuity you will encourage a man to be anxious to get work and in many cases the money will be used by the returned mam to purchase tools, to establish himself in business, or applied in any way that he feels disposed, to the best advantage of the person receiving it.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Would my hon. friend allow me a further question as to the amount of the gratuity that he is in favour of?


George Green Foster: The same amount as has been applied in the last six months under the old system. You now give a gratuity to be applied in instalments, over six months, and amounting .to $420. I propose to extend
that for a further six months by giving them an amount equal to what they have already received. That would, according to our present expenditure for gratuities, amount to something like $153,000,000.


Richard Clive Cooper: As the gratuities are graded according to length of service, some men are getting a gratuity for three months, some for four and some for. six months. Would you apply the gratuity for three, four, or six months?


George Green Foster: I would apply it for three months, if a man was out of work, say, in January, February and March. This would get you over the severe part of the winter.


Mr. LOGGIE:: Is that charity?


George Green Foster: No, that is not charity. It is something that I feel the returned soldier is entitled to, and I think we can very well afford1 it. I would like to make some suggestions later along that line. I believe that we might receive a large amount of revenue in addition to what is necessary to carry on the work of the Government.
I know that in presenting their applications to the committee, one section of the Great War Veterans suggested that the man who went to France should receive $2,000, the man who went to England $1,500, and the man who remained in Canada, $1,000. The payment of these gratuities would require a very large amount, which I think was estimated at $800,000,000. We all feel the country cannot afford to make such a huge expenditure as that. Another branch of the organization were a little more modest; and were not disposed to make such an extreme demand; what they asked for was considerably less but it would perhaps total three or four hundred million dollars. Still another branch of the organization were even more modest in their proposition which would have involved the payment of a lesser sum than would the second of these other requests1. I am yet more modest in my views than either of these three, and I suggest that we can afford to repeat the gratuity that we have already granted. The Great War Veterans object to the grant which has been recommended of some $40,000,000, and personally I do not think it should be applied in the way proposed, because it appears to be too much like charity. I think that after paying due regard to all the facts of the case, and duly weighing the views of the various members of the House and the suggestions they have advanced as to how the needed revenue might be raised, it is



not unreasonable that we should give the extra gratuity. It is better to do that than to have our veterans walking the streets and asking for charity. If we allowed that condition of affairs to prevail it would be a calamity and a disgrace to Canada. I think the Great War Veterans deserve better of this country than to be handed out anything that would have the remotest resemblance to charity. I think Canada should pay to the extent that she is able to do, and that it is possible for her to find the necessary funds for the purpose. A great many people advance the argument that Canada is not able to pay any further gratuity. According to the report of the committee which is now before us it was thought $35,000,000 would be the limit; but after second thought, and without any serious investigation on the part of those concerned, this amount was advanced to $50,000,000. If it was possible to make this jump of a few millions so easily without further investigation, it is possble to agree upon $153,000,000 and give the soldiers another grant equal to what they have already been receiving.
It now becomes my duty to advance some suggestions as to the sources from which we might derive further revenue. Those suggestions may not appeal to members generally; and though from some sources the revenue yielded may appear to be small yet in the aggregate they will yield a very large amount.
First, I would apply a special tax on all farm lands throughout Canada.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Does the hon. gentleman say " farm lands?"


George Green Foster: Yes, farm lands of every description. We have not made very severe demands on the farming community in Canada for means to carry on the war. We have not, hitherto, levied any very special tax on that community-in fact I think they have escaped almost scot free. We know that by reason of the great demand for farm products the farming community have realized many millions of dollars, so that if, for this purpose, we should make a levy upon the farm lands of the Dominion, no complaint could be raised by the farmers themselves nor even by the landowners.
Then I would suggest the imposition of a special tax on all automobiles in the Dominion. It may be said that we have already imposed a large tax on automobiles. Each province has levied a tax of a considerable amount; hut the Dominion should also levy a special tax to help to meet the soldiers' demands and it might be collected

through the provinces'in the same way as the city collected for the provinces the special war tax which the latter demanded. The revenue for this purpose might be collected by the provinces and handed over to the Dominion. We know that there are hundreds of thousands of automobiles throughout the Dominion, and that the province of -Ontario is deriving almost $2,000,000 a year from this source. If we applied a special automobile tax throughout the whole Dominion, it would produce a very considerable revenue.
Then I suggest a special tax on all luxuries and I would begin by taxing theatre chairs. There is already a tax on tickets of admission to theatres, and the Provincial Government has a special tax; but when we consider that in the large majority of theatres, such as vaudeville and picture shows, one chair is occupied perhaps several times in the course of the day, thus producing a revenue of $4 or $5 per diem, and how enormously these theatres are patronized throughout the Dominion, we realize what a large revenue can be derived therefrom.
I would also propose a special tax on all steamboats. I am told that this is a very remunerative line of business, from which a revenue of millions of dollars is derived. There are many hundreds of them in operation throughout the country and a special tax on steamboats would also yield a very large revenue.
A further suggestion I make-one which I proposed to the city of Toronto hut which they did not adopt-is to impose a tax upon all bachelors in the Dominion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Green Foster: We know there are many thousands of bachelors in this country and they are not burdened with the same responsibilities as married men. They earn' good incomes; and ought to contribute towards carrying on the work of the State and meeting the demands of the soldiers and their widows. If they object to paying the tax, they can marry some of the widows. In that way they can assume some of the existing responsibilities and take charge of a number of the orphans.	_
Then, a special tax could be levied upon all aliens in this country who are earning large amounts; a tax of this kind should yield a large revenue. I suggest also^ a special tax on all high grade teas; a special tax on all fancy sugars and high grade candies; a special tax on all timber limits;

a special tax on all gold and silver mines; a special tax on all iron and coal mines; a special tax on all horse power of electricity developed.
These are a few suggestions that I have in mind by the adoption of which a large revenue could be secured without serious injury to any one. On the contrary, the persons subject to the tax would 'be doing the right thing as good, loyal Canadians and showing their appreciation of what the soldiers have done for Canada and for the Empire.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: May I ask the hon. member a question by way of elaboration? He says that he would levy a special tax on all farm lands. Would he not apply the same principle to cities like Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton and London and other large centres? Would he not tax city property as well as farm lands?


George Green Foster: Yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member would do that?


George Green Foster: I agree to that, yes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. member did not mention that; I thought he had overlooked it.


George Green Foster: Not at all. The hon. gentleman proibably has it in mind that the people of Toronto, the city which I represent, would resent imy approving of a levy on property in that city. I think that the people of Toronto or of any other loyal city in Canada would not object to the levying of a tax upon properties in those cities as well as a tax upon farm lands throughout the country.
At two previous sessions I drew to the attention of the House a source of revenue, an opportunity of raising a large amount of money without hardship-indeed, from people who, I am sure, would have a perfect right to pay. If we had put that plan into operation at the time that I suggested it, we would have raised hundreds of millions of dollars and thus met every demand that has foeen made by the Great War Veterans. We had in this country during the war hundreds of thousands of aliens, who were earning five, ten and fifteen dollars a day, year in and year out. They were all well-to-do, some of them wealthy. As I stated on that occasion, many of them were carrying belts containing thousands of dollars. What has occurred since I made
that statement? The war is now over; the .munition factories have closed down and these aliens are leaving the country in thousands. I noticed only a few days ago that in New York city some six thousand aliens were anxious to get transportation across to Europe, and it was said that these people were taking back to their own country many millions of dollars-I forget the rough estimate that was made of the amount. There was an opportunity that we had, but we were too slow or too indifferent or too sensitive to apply to the alien these methods of raising revenue. The alien would not have objected, because he was making enormous sums. He was not living extravagantly; he was living economically, saving a very large propor^ tion of his earnings. You can appreciate the many hundreds of millions of dollars that went out of Canada to these foreign countries. These sums will, of course, go to help ibuild up these foreign countries, at the expense of Canada and at the expense of our Great War Veterans.


Mr. LALOR:: How would you propose to collect that tax?


George Green Foster: Through the employer. If an employer had ten, fifteen or twenty-five aliens in his employ, or whatever the number might be, the employer would collect the tax levied by the Government and hand over every month a cheque for the amount that he had collected.


Mr. MANION:: Would the hon. member limit that tax to enemy aliens, or would he have it apply to all aliens?


George Green Foster: I would apply it to all aliens who I would consider had a right to contribute to the State.
When I make these statements I am mindful of the financial condition of our country; I am mindful of our large debt. But I am mindful also of the great resources of this country. We are carrying a debt of some two billions, and we shall soon be adding to it another billion. But as against that we have the resources of Canada. We know that millions can be made out of the resources of this country if the Government is alive, alert, up-to-date and progressive and develops them. The resources are here; the wealth is in the 'country; it is simply a matter of the Government becoming resuscitated, adopting a vigorous policy and spending large amounts in the development of these great natural resources.

I do not see any reason, therefore, why this matter should not stand in abeyance, possibly until after the session, and have this committee, or another committee to 'be appointed, go into the matter further with a view to seeing what amounts can toe raised through the development of our various resources in order to meet to some *extent the demands of the Great War Veterans for a further gratuity.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at three o'clock.


MEMBER INTRODUCED.
[Stage Direction]
John Wilfred Kennedy, Esquire, member-elect for the electoral district of Glengarry and Stormont, introduced by Mr. J. F. Reid and Mr. F. L. Davis.

William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confine myself in the few remarks that I may make, to my own opinions on this subject. I have read with a good deal of interest and care the report made to the House in regard to this question of the re-establishment of the returned soldier. In the first place, I think it is one of the best parliamentary reports that I have seen-and I have seen many of them-and I wish to compliment the hon. gentlemen who drew it up for the logical way in which they have presented their case, for the consideration which they have given to the matter before them, and for the painstaking manner in which they have applied themselves to the consideration of the evidence on the question. Yet when I say that, I must also add that it has all the marks of a report of the chairman and directors of an incorporated company to their shareholders. With all the ability in it and with apparently the desire on their part to be just in their report and in their recommendations to the House, their report seems to lack the one human element of consideration and the fullest recognition of the services of those men who fought the battle of this nation and of humanity, and who did their full share in achieving the triumph of democracy. There is not that human touch, that human recognition that, to my mind, ought to be in a report of this kind. It is methodical; it is far reaching; it can be justified; it is logical; but it is not quite the parliamentary recognition that 
ought to be shown, and to-day is the testing day of the recognition by Parliament of the sons of this nation who took part in this war, who risked their very lives, and many of whom made the supreme sacrifice. It happens to toe my fortune-and it is only by accident-that I come from a riding that represents the growing portion of the metropolitan city of Toronto. For nearly thirty years now I have been identified with that riding. That riding, so far as I can gather, has sent more of its sons to the front, and has sustained more disasters than probably any other constituency in this country. I do not say this in any spirit of boastfulness. In the suburban section of the city of Toronto and in the township of York you can go from one little mission church to another, and you will see in each an honour roll of those whom they have sent to the front and of those who will never come back. In each one of those churches you can see at least 100 names on that honour roll and often more than thirty or forty names of those who have given up their lives for the noble cause they went overseas to uphold. That riding has another characteristic, and it is its intensely British character. I have been at public school gatherings in that section where I have seen the master ask the children to stand up in two divisions, He would say to them: "Will all the children who are not Canadian-born citizens stand up?" They would stand up, and then he would ask those children who were native-born to stand up, and those who were born outside of Canada were in the majority. You would hardly find that in any other school in the country, but you find it in many of the schools in that section. The constituency that I represent has made great sacrifices, and I am trying to voice the views not only of the people of South York, but of the people of the city of Toronto and vicinity in regard to this question. I recall the first winter after the war and the distress that followed it-and I saw a good deal of that-and the beginning of recruiting. I went to recruiting meeting after recruiting meeting, and I spoke on the platform, as many other hon. gentlemen did in their ridings. We asked the young men to join up, and I was at meetings where the presiding officer had a bell, and as each boy came up he rang the bell. I was at meetings in that locality where over 100 boys came forward in one night within an hour and a half and registered to go to the front.
I also recall that in the last election I appealed to the people to support LTnion Government and their policy in regard to

the war, and especially for support, as we all appealed for support, for the boys who were at the front. I appealed time after time to the voters of that constituency and especially bo the women, who had then been enfranchised, and to the relatives of those who were at the front to give me their confidence, and I never hesitated to say that when the boys came back I hoped and trusted that- Parliament would recognize the sacrifices that they made, and I prophesied that the recognition would be four-fold when the time came. I never hesitated to say this to the people, and it was an easy thing to win the election there on such an appeal. Some of us in that district had not 5,000, or 6,000, but 8,000, 10,000, or even 16,000 majority. So, coming from a portion of the country like that and going in and out amongst all those people and having made those promises that I made and that I heard other people and the newspapers make, I say .that we are 'bound to show perhaps more generosity than justice, but it is only a matter of justice that we should give some kind of recognition, some kind of help, maybe, in this period of reconstruction which has come to our returned men as it has come to all of us. While I do not condemn the report in any way, I do not want to see the merits of the report^and it has many merits in it-ignored or not recognized. I think in some way there ought to be a little more recognition of the claims of the men, especially as those claims have been set out by the Great War Veterans' Association and their representatives here.
I want to speak of another case in my experience. I went to a leading firm in Toronto, which firm sent many of its employees to the front, a firm which paid their wages all the time they were at the front and looked after their families. This firm employs many women dependent on men who went to the front, and I asked that great firm what their experience was of the men when they came back. I said: " What do you do for them?" "Well," they replied, " every man has his position, and every man has the same pay that he had before he went to the war." I said: " How do they discharge their duties?" They said: " Some come back, and they pick up their work and carry on; many another man does not quite pick up his work; he will work a few hours to-day, and then he will go home and he will come back to-morrow; and some of them do not seem quite as if they will ever be able bo take up their work; but we let them stop there and gradually they are getting better and more used to their work, and
we say nothing." Many who have come home are not the same men they were before they went to the war. We should try to reestablish them and build them up, and that is only the right thing to do. I come in contact with those men every day of my life; I go in and out amongst them, and I have heard their complaints.
Many of them are far from being fit. They are anxious to be re-established, and while they do not ask for charity, they certainly desire to be placed on a satisfactory basis in civil life; and, in my view at all events, they should undoubtedly be treated with generosity. I therefore trust that the House will take a somewhat broader and more patriotic view of the question and that Parliament will show a generosity commensurate with the noble and stupendous part which our soldiers have played in 'the interests of civilization. What the Canadian soldiers have accomplished in the defence of humanity and democracy is one of the greatest and most brilliant achievements in history. Their achievement is pre-eminent and will go down in history as one of the chief factors in protecting the world from the menace of a mighty foe. So that when we are called upon to deal with the position of the returned soldiers it is incumbent upon us even to let our generosity be exuberant to the point of overflowing. It is perhaps true that the men are being exploited to some degree, and I have seen them at times worked up to a considerable feeling of indignation in regard to their treatment, more particularly in comparison with the preferred treatment in -this country of aliens and profiteers. I have heard that statement made, and there was some reference made in the House this morning to that fact. But even if some of the soldiers do cherish sentiment^ like this, I say that we shall never make any grievous mistake if we err on the side of generosity and a due recognition of what our brave men have done in behalf of the cause oif Canada and humanity at large.
Now, the question is asked, where is the money to come from? Every business man and every member of the House, Mr. Speaker, in approaching a question of that kind must begin with the consideration of ways and means, and the solution of the two great problems that confront us, namely re-establishment of the soldiers and reconstruction, is absolutely dependent on that question. I compliment the committee on the exhaustive resume they have given of the financial condition of the

country, and their suggestion that every care and prudence must be exercised in administering our finances. Still, Mr. Speaker, there are new sources of revenue that have not yet been tapped in this country, and I listened with much interest to the suggestion of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Foster) in regard to new forms of taxation that might be instituted, the confiscation of unjust profits, taxes on land and taxes on some of the resources of the country. I believe that Parliament at its next session will have to go into the whole matter of our finances and devise new sources of income in order that we may be able to discharge our commitments, which are many and growing. While I have no very great suggestions to make now, in the closing days of this session, I am convinced that Parliament will have to revise the whole fiscal policy of the country from the bottom upwards and find a greater income to meet our obligations, and probably at another session I may be imprudent enough to attempt to proffer suggestions in this^ direction. At the present moment, however, I do see sources of income that could be tapped to pay a portion of our debt and re-establish our men. I shall make no personal references to-day, but in the early days of the war I stated that Canada had the richest store of metal resources to be found in any country on earth. It possesses the richest band of mineral wealth in that thirty-mile range in the Sudbury country, trich in nickel, in gold, in silver, in platinum, in paladium and in fact in all the key metals. In some way we have let outsiders develop and control that great source o.f wealth, and I have contended before in this House, and I contend now, that one immense source of income available for discharging our national debt and our obligations to our soldiers* can be taken advantage of if the Government will in some way take over or superintend the development of those mines and take a portion of the wealth so produced. Instead of Canadians developing that mineral Eldorado, we have allowed foreigners to come In and exploit it. We do not know to-day, nor has any disclosure ever been made to the people of Canada, as to the extent of the mineral and metal riohness of these mines. We do not know how mucfh platinum has been taken out of them and reduced and refined in the United States and in Great Britain, but my belief is that millions upon millions in money of the platinum that went into the war came from Canada, not to mention millions in silver and gold, and especially 
in nickel. Now, nickel is the key industry of the world, and the world is going to be reconstructed largely with nickel steel. We have nickel in this country that can supply the world. Indeed, I think we have a monopoly of nickel and some other metals, and if we hut realize how valuable they are and controlled them, as the nation should control them, there would be an enormous source of revenue for our requirements. The British authorities have declared that hereafter these key industries must be held in trust for the Empire, and if we take over these immense nickel resources in the Sudbury country and see that there is a fair distribution of the output as between those who put their money into these mines, our revenue will be largely increased. The same thing applies to many other of our natural resources. We have allowed our water powers and timber limits and other of our natural resources to pass from our control, and immense profits have been made out of them.


Mr. J. A. CALDER:: The hon. gentleman is referring to natural resources belonging to the province of Ontario. What jurisdiction have we to control those resources?


William Findlay Maclean: On the ground of national protection and safety, the Dominion of Canada has supreme right to exercise some degree of control over these. I admit the provincial jurisdiction to which the hon. minister refers, but through this Parliament I am talking to a nation on a great national issue, and the nation can come forward and control these things. This Government has been requested by the Imperial Government to join with them in passing a non-ferrous law but. we have not yet done so. The reason advanced by the British Government was that it had discovered that in some way the control of the country's metals, indispensable to the defence of the Empire, had passed out of our hands. There is a way in which we can deal with the nickel industry. We can put an export duty on all of it that goes out of this country, but as I have said we have allowed this great wealth in nickel to leave Canada. The United States Government, in taxing profits, not long ago discovered in New Jersey a refinery' for what is known as matte. This matte, which is the raw form of the first reduction of nickel ore, was seized, and in a few days the United States Goveriiment had a check for three and a half million dollars which should have come to Canada. Nobody knows how much one firm in

England has made out of nickel ore that w<as exported from Sudbury to England and refined there. Well, we could have taxed all these things. We could tax even the export of our timber product in this country if we thought fit although it would possibly be a provincial and not a Dominion concession.
I am not going into a discussion with my hon. friend the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Calder), to whose careful attention we largely owe this excellent report, as Jto new sources of revenue. But, there are sources of revenue which can be called on in a condition of affairs like the present. We have to find a way for availing ourselves of these sources if we are to undertake the duty of the reconstruction of the country and the re-establishment of onr soldiers.
At the present time we are going farther into debt; we are not getting out of debt. We are putting out one loan after another, we will have to put out another and after that probably another and another. It comes down to a question of ways and means. While it may be said at present that we have not the ways and means, we have to find them.
I was very much impressed by the excellent speech by the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) and particularly with his proposal for a soldier bond loan. I believe the patriotic people of Canada will subscribe to a bond loan for the purpose of discharging our dues to the soldiers and providing for their re-establishment. I believe it would be a most popular appeal to the people to say that we were going to raise money on a soldier's bond to pay them off.
What will be the commitment? I have talked to some of the representatives of the veterans and the reasonable ones that I have seen come down to probably a $200,000,000 proposal. I want to say to this House and the country that in view of the present condition of affairs greatest and the best settlement of that debt of ours to the soldiers will he a quick clean up. We will get a quick discharge of the debt and it may be for a comparatively small sum. Let us try and get it closed up. It will not pay the debt but we may get a receipt for a $200,000,000 expenditure now and next year that will close up this claim. Otherwise Parliament will be approached year after year just as the American Government was assailed for thirty years after the civil war in regard to pension claims. It cost them an enormous sum. These claims will be coming up and if the Veterans come forward, as I understand they have come forward, with a second proposal, which I believe they will produce if the committee asks for it, we will get the thing closed up and then we will be able to give our attention to the reconstruction of the country at large.
While I do not wish to be taken as in any way discrediting this report, and while I give every credit to the committee who drafted it, I think they ought to find a way, if it be possible, to re-consider it in some directions in an effort to meet the views not only of the men but of the people of the country at large. I know that we are all here as trustees not for the soldiers only but for all the people. Perhaps it is an easy thing for me to talk as I have talked here to-day, because more soldiers happen to be resident in the riding I represent than in some other ridings. I think I am speaking fairly for the community that I represent, and that they will not be dissatisfied with Parliament if it tries to make a quick clean up of this question by giving a more generous vote this session. The committee has already increased the amount, as was pointed out a few moments ago. If they would make that vote a little more generous this session, make it rather an addition to the gratuity with perhaps a concluding vote next session


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: My hon. friend may laugh, but it has to be cleaned up. It is not being cleaned up now, and we will have here a recurrence of the demand just as they have had a recurrence of the demand for pensions in the United States thirty years after the Civil War. Let us try and get a discharge. I believe that the whole people of Canada will approve of Parliament looking at this question in a broad and generous way, rather than as trustees exercising a trust. There is something more than trusteeship; there is la patrie recon-naissante, the recognition of the country for valiant service well rendered. I do not know how to express it, but the debt has got to be discharged, or else, as one hon. gentleman said this morning, we are not made of the same kind of stuff as those sons of ours who went to the front and fought for us. That is the underlying thought in the minds of the Canadian people. We have to be generous with these men even if it may be said that we are extravagant.
I do ask the House to acquit me of any charge of popularity hunting because I have

stood up to-day and made the suggestions that I have made. This is not the end of it for me. I have already engaged myself to go to a dozen meetings in South York and explain to the rural branches of the veterans the attitude of Parliament. Perhaps I may not come back; I do not care what they do to me so long as I satisfy my conscience that I have acted justly and generously. They may think that I have been wrong or that I have not treated them fairly- they will have their opportunity of looking after me at the elections which may come to-morrow or next year, and if they do not want me they can choose some one else who they may think will better represent them. I am trying to speak for all the people of South York and perhaps for a large section of the metropolitan district of Toronto. When I do that I do it without any "safety first" movement on my part, or without doing anything unfair to my fellow members. I know what a trying question this is to every one of them. I do it as one who would like to see us get rid of this question and get rid of it by a generous recognition of the men while at the same time- not increasing to any extent the debt of the country.
Let us find new sources of revenue to tap, and there are new sources that are available, and that is a point I commend to the consideration of the Government. If they do that, they will find a way out of the difficulty and will find the people backing them up in taking a more generous view of the re-establi'shment of the soldiers of Canada who were at the front.


Mr. W. K. BALDWIN (Stanstead):: It has been my good fortune to meet a good many returned soldiers who have been at the great war, and, generally speaking, I have found them very fair-minded men. I have, in nearly every instance, found them to be all that one could expect. There are very few but take a broad national view of their own condition and the conditions of this country. They say that more than fifty per cent of the returned men are in no imperative need of money at present and that with respect to fifty per cent of the balance the same thing is true. But there is an element-^foreign-born, so to speak, not Canadian-born-that are agitating for this flat rate gratuity of $2,000. Now we have got to deal with this matter in a businesslike way. We had the statement yesterday from the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) that this country is greatly burdened with debt, and that it is almost impossible to

grant a cash graltuity to these soldiers. The hon. gentleman (Mr. W. F. Maclean) who has just spoken, tells us of the national resources of Canada and he also tells us that we must get rid of this question. Well, it appears to me that we are going the wrong way about it. Every prudent man in this House knows that it is the lot of the young men to work and to lay by something for a rainy day and for old age; they should not spend at once everything they can get hold of. If our young men do not become thrifty this country will never emerge from the slough of despond in which we are at present labouring. It has been urged that we should resort to lotteries and Sunday theatres and derive money from these sources in order to help the returned soldier. Such things would be analogous to the bullfights and the cock-fights peculiar to Spain and Mexico. Spain reverted to its senses some years ago and Mopped the practice. Mexico has not changed its national pastime. It indulges in bull-fights and cockfights on holidays and on Sundays, varied occasionally by the people fighting each other. Surely we do not want in this country of abundance to let the devil rule until Hell shall reign triumphant.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Such a procedure is wholly repugnant and wholly impossible. We also hear free traders talk of raising the tariff in order to secure the necessary additional revenue. Last night in this House a free trader advocated putting on more Customs duty for this purpose. It occurs to me, as I have already said,, that the young and vigorous among our population should look out for old age. When the wisdom of a thing is demonstrated beyond the possibility of a doubt, why not adopt it. The great United States has adopted the principle of insurance for its soldiers, and in the case of every one of its soldiers who went abroad to fight in the great war a portion of his pay was set aside to meet the insurance premiums. On returning to their country they were given the privilege of taking insurance from among some four or five different systems. The Government is very insistent that they should do that; in fact, they are sending men around to search out the soldiers and get them to adopt the plan. Now this is a policy which seeks to induce the young soldiers to set aside some portion of their earnings for the coming rainy day. Already the United States have built up a big reserve in this insurance department consisting of many

million dollars and the returned soldier is adopting the course urged upon him. The payments are as low as $15 per thousand and $10,000 is the maximum they are asked to insure for. Why is not this country pursuing the same policy? It has had two years to ponder over the matter and we might just as well have followed the example of the United States. Had we done so we should now have a reserve lying in the Government's treasury to pay off the insurance risk as these soldiers die.
In this country we -possess a great domain. We have no surplus funds available and yet we have very great interest payments coming due. In regard to the Victory Loan we notice it is difficult to get people to subscribe to it. I am not speaking advisedly, but it would appear from the Canadian press that the organizers of that loan are having a job to get subscribers.


William Findlay Maclean: The loan will amount to double the amount we are asking. [DOT]


Willis Keith Baldwin: I should be very glad indeed if that should prove to be the case. Personally, I subscribed very much more than my circumstances warrant. I repeat that we have an enormous public domain. Take our great northern territory which is somewhat analogous to Alaska. The United States are developing Alaska and this -country i-s yielding billions more money than were paid in millions foT it. If Alaska is so wonderfully rich in natural resources, our own northern territory, which is only divided from it by an imaginary line, must be equally rich. Now we all admit that the returned soldier -should be reimbursed and well reimbursed for the sacrifices he has made in helping him and his dependents. Why not, even if we have to go beyond the -surveyed territory, allot a portion of land to each soldier who is willing to go? Let him take a -certain acreage of land and become the pioner and colonizer in that new country which we are desirous of -settling to-day. Too many of our population are segregated in the cities and towns of this land. What we want is to get more people on to the unoccupied lands and we should permit the returned soldier to locate in that country if he wishes to do so. If he goes beyond the surveyed regions into territory that is unsurveyed, make him a grant of land and let him select it for himself. If he should tumble on a fine water power or strike a mineral deposit, 'do not take it away from him. If he had the grit and the gumption
to grubstake and develop it, possibly living in a dugout or shack while doing so, let him reap the advantage of what he may discover. I would favour that system of rewarding the soldier but as for making a cash grant it is beyond our capacity. There is no question, but the appalling stupendous debt of this country is discouraging-I feel it is discouraging not only to the community at large but Parliament also. New taxation is threatened and we have heard one hon. gentleman advocating a tax on farm lands. That may be wdll enough for him, but the farmers, very probably within a very short time, will show this House what they think about such a proposition. While I am in perfect sympathy with the soldier and recognize that any one who has suffered physically or mentally should be fairly dealt with, there i= this to be borne in mind.
Let us remember that there are more branches than agriculture. If a man is inclined to become a fisherman, let us help him; if he has ambition to engage in scientific research, let us help him. Let us do everything we can for the returned soldier. Every intelligent soldier knows that we are unable to give a further cash grant. He knows that it would put a great burden upon this country if we attempted to secure the necessary money for a further cash grant, for we would have to go into the foreign money market with our dollar only worth ninety-five cents. We should first get our dollar recognized as worth one hundred cents in the American money market, and if every mother's son will work hard and long we as patriotic Canadians will soon show the world that -our great national debt is a mere bagatelle. This question can only be grasped if it is gone into in a businesslike way, and we must so approach it, and in a spirit of patriotism so guard our great heritage that our soldiers will be thankful for what we have done.


Mr. W. F. OOCKSHUTT (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize this as being a serious and a somewhat dangerous question for a public man to express his opinions upon, but I do not feel that I would be doing -my duty to my constituency or to my country if I failed to make a few remarks upon what I deem to be this very important question now before the House. The report of the committee, as has been said already by the member for York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) is a very excellent document in many respects. I had strong sympathy with the committee in the work they undertook, and reading the names of the

gentlemen composing that committee they inspired me /with confidence that they would try to arrive at conclusions that would he safe and sound and in the interests of the soldiers and the country. I hope, however, I will not be considered unbind or ungenerous if I say that I am nob in full accord with the findings of the committee. Of course, as the father of three soldier sons who have served at the front I may he accused of desiring to see them obtain some further advantage at the cost of the country. If any hon. member holds such an opinion, Mr. Speaker, I hope he will disabuse his mind at once, as I would be quite content, and these young men are quite content, not to ask for a single further dollar from the country, although I may say that those boys are not in the same condition as they were when they went overseas, the result of their combined service of eleven years partly at the front. I only make that personal explanation, Mr. Speaker, in order that I may not be accused of speaking from any particular angle or with a desire to arrive at any other than a just conclusion in regard to this subject.
The committee have gone into the matter very fully, having summoned evidence from a good many quarters. I have not had time to read the evidence, nor have I fully read the report as I should have done. But the minister (Mr. Calder) gave an excellent analysis of it yesterday and I endeavoured to follow him as closely as possible. Judging it as best I can from the standpoint of the business man and the layman, Mr. Speaker, I am rather forced to the conclusion that the committee has given too much attention to proving the financial inability of the country rather than to showing the duty of the country to the soldier and to his dependents. That, I think, is a serious defect in the report. I do not believe that we have raised the last dollar that can be raised. If I did so believe I would not have voted for a good many of the projects that I have supported in this House.
The war just concluded was the greatest war of all the ages, and the problems it has left behind are just as great as those which confronted us during its progress, and we have to treat those problems on as noble and generous a scale in these early days of peace as in the trying days of war. Canada took one of the leading parts in the great war. On every platform we have boasted of the splendid qualities of our soldiers, and when the war was concluded there was no better fighting unit in Europe

than our Canadian army corps. Our soldiers then having established our prowess on the battle-field, I trust that we who remained at home are going to be equally capable in grappling with the questions that have come to us by reason of the war. I am not quite sure yet, Mr. Speaker, that we have reached the full measure of our selfdenial. I am not sure that we have denied ourselves many of the luxuries of life that we from day to day enjoy, and as a man who condemns himself just as much as I condemn any of my fellow members, I say that if it is necessary in the opinion of our volunteer army that went overseas that Canada has not been generous enough to them, I trust that we will yet show our soldiers that if we err in any direction we are going to err on over rather than on under payment to them. It is true that the sacrifices our soldiers made cannot be rewarded by dollars and cents. Every man knows that. The trials that they endured on the battle-fields, sleeping in mud and water and fighting night and day, were such as no money can ever adequately reward; but we must remember that it was only by their noble generous spirit that they came through triumphant at last, and, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to " carry on " in a manner worthy of their magnificent efforts we must dig down and entrench ourselves, so to speak, in the resources of this country in such a way that those men who have come back may not suffer any disadvantage in re-establishing themselves in civil life.
I have not been bothered in any degree by the five thousand soldiers in my constituency, and I have only had about one telegram and one interview with eight or ten of these men. Whether they know my views and that I am not easily moved, I cannot tell, but they have not endeavoured in any way to influence me in the course which I shall take in this debate. Therefore I feel free to express my views as a citizen and as a man who is in full sympathy with our soldiers. I have boasted on many a platform that the treatment that Canada has handed out to her soldiers is the finest that has been accorded by any country in the world. I think that is true now, but it is not quite as true as I thought it was in one or two respects. I am told that Aus-ralia has exceeded us in payments to her troops for tfleir services overseas.
I understand that that is the case to-day, though I believe it was not the case when the war began. But whether that is the case or not, it will not have the effect of

influencing my desire to meet the views of the men. I say, therefore, to the committee-and I say it without any desire to criticise adversely what they have done -that I regret that they have not viewed the question from, a little more generous angle than seems to be indicated by the report.
The programme laid down in the report will entail an expenditure of .about $50,000,000, in addition to what we have already spent or voted. I have looked over the figures and have endeavoured to study them. Of course, it is not easy to understand all that has been done. The minister, in his long and very exhaustive report yesterday of the work of the committee, set forth in detail a great deal of what has been spent and a great deal of what has been done. I think that in all about $350,000,000 to $400,000,000 is what we have spent. As I have said, this was the biggest war of all the ages. More men were engaged in it than were ever engaged in any previous war, and the problem which faces us following the conclusion of the war is correspondingly large. Some gentlemen have taken into consideration in this regard such wars as the Fenian raid, the South African war, and the like. These, important in themselves, were a mere bagatelle compared with the great conflict which recently ended. We must learn to think generously, in proportion to the vast enterprises in which we have been engaged. This war was the vastest enterprise in which the world ever engaged, and it is unreasonable to expect that within this generation all the liabilities incurred as a result of the war can be discharged. This war, after all, was not only for the present generation; it was for all generations for all time; it was for the security of humanity and civilization in the generations to come. It is unreasonable, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that the whole of the load which has come upon us as a result of this immense struggle should be wiped out by this generation. I do not think it is possible; I do not believe it is desirable. It is but just that posterity should pay some of the cost of this great war. This generation has lost what is far more precious than	money; it has
lost	much of its	best flesh	and
blood, which cannot be replaced within many years. That, of itself, is a great loss [DOT]to this generation. Moreover, our resources have been more or less depleted, and we have piled up a debt of about two thousand millions. But that is not a crushing load for a country with the resources of Canada. That is not going to weigh us
down forever. With wise management; with a proper development of our resources; with a continuance of the busy industry of the intelligent citizens of our country, we can wipe out that debt at an early day if we find it necessary to do so. But as I have said, I do not think that is necessary, nor do I think it wise to attempt it at this time.
I do not want to go into the details of this question, I simply want to make a few suggestions. To my hon. friends opposite I suggest that this is too serious a question to be made the basis of an effort to make political capital. The quiet way in which our friends on the other side have conducted themselves to-day shows *conclusively that they are of that view, and I am glad that that is the case. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this is not a time for personalities. I hope that the debate will from now on be free from anything of that kind. We may have strong views on a question of this kind, but there is no reason why the House should lose its sense of dignity, or why hon. members should indulge in personalities. If anybody has a criticism to make of any of my remarks I hope he will make it; I shall be prepared to receive it. In expressing our views upon a question of this kind we should all strive to consider the matter seriously and earnestly; we should use only those words, which we think will throw some light or some information upon the question at issue.
I have said that I regard the proposal of the committee as insufficient. They propose a programme involving, in round figures, an expenditure of $50,000,000. I will set off with a proposal that they multiply that by six and lay out a programme involving an expenditure of from $250,000,000 to $300,000,000, which is less than half the amount involved in some of the extreme calculations which have been made.
I want to say right here of our soldier body that they are intelligent, wise, sound men as a -whole, although a few agitators have crept into the ranks who do not desire or do not try to lead their fellowmen in the right direction. I hope our soldiers will see to it that they follow only those who have the true interests of the soldier at heart, and that they be not led by agitators or by any who seek to serve political or other purposes not really conducive to the best interests of the soldier. The soldier body has so good a record in the war that ft would ibe a pity for them to spoil that record now, by allowing themselves to be

unwisely led or by acting injudiciously. So far they have conducted themselves like men, and I believe that if we do our part they will continue to do theirs.
Many of these men, Mr. Speaker, feel that they have grievances against the Government. Rightly or wrongly, they are impressed with that view, and it is our duty to look into this thing in a sympathetic way and try to solve the problem in the honest way that the soldier would have it solved rather than err on the side of being ungenerous. I would rather be guilty of paying five dollars too much to a soldier than of keeping one dollar from him; and it is from that point of view that I approach this question.
I recommend, therefore, that either now or at no distant date we lay out a programme that we think is fair and, which has due regard to the soldiers' own requests. I do not think it is too -much to say that the soldiers should have a good deal to say about this. They are the ones most concerned; they and their families
4 p.m. are the ones who have suffered most, and they are in many respects the 'best people to judge of what they require to put them on their feet again. I would, therefore, listen very closely to the statement of the requirements of the Soldiers as placed before the committee by the war veterans themselves. I think that they have some good, sound leaders. I had not the pleasure of hearing very many of them, but I believe that some good, sound advice was given to the committee by some of the soldiers' representatives. I would set out, therefore, with the idea of trying to meet the soldiers' views as far as possible, and having in mind the suggestion that it is better to err in the direction of over-generosity than in the direction of being penurious. I know that the committee have acted in the very hest of good faith; and I know that they have tried to be ultra-just to the country and to safeguard the interests of the people as a whole. I know that that has been in their minds from start to finish, and I do not for a moment criticise them,. But I believe that a programme involving $250,000,000 or $300,000,000 would, not stagger the country or cause any very great ripjple of excitement from coast to coast.
Having decided that we can face a programme involving from $250,000,000 to $300,000,000, I would, in the light of the request of the soldiers themselves, proceed to ascertain what that amount could best be devoted to. I have jotted down two or three

things that I think might receive further consideration.
First, the widow and dependents. I would do a little better for them than anything that has already been done, generous as it may appear. The cost of living is high. The difficulties are great in maintaining a household, even if one has plenty of money, and the ones who have not very much money have a big problem on their hands in endeavouring to supply the needs of a family in these days.
Then, the aged mother should have very great consideration. I am not sure, but I do not think that she has received the consideration at the hands of the House and of the country that she should have received. And this should apply not merely to the aged mother; it should apply to the dependent mother, even if she is not very old, whose son has died for his country. Surely it is not too much to give her what will keep her fairly comfortably during the rest of her life, which will not, at best, be very long.


Richard Clive Cooper: She is pensioned.


William Foster Cockshutt: Yes, she is pensioned; but I am asking for a little more in both those respects, for the widow and dependents and for the aged mother. Then I ask more lor the man who is totally disabled. I have in mind two or three cases of men in my city who, although they are considered to be fairly generously treated, are, I know, not getting what they should get. One has tuberculosis, and the other has undergone about twenty-five operations. He has had the side of his face shot all away, and he is a patched up man who has gone through untold agony with heroic fortitude. I just mention those two cases in order that the House may appreciate the remarks I made a moment ago, that you cannot overpay, yes, that you cannot pay at all as they should be paid, the services of men who have suffered in that way. t It is in that light that I would approach the subject of the totally disabled. I do not think they are getting enough, nor that their families are receiving sufficient consideration.
The widow of the soldier who was killed overseas should receive the gratuity that the soldier would have received if he had come home in a more or less disabled condition. I do not think that is being done. Then I believe that all the soldiers who themselves are in many cases relieving the wants of others, because I am informed that in our own War Veterans' Association in

Brantford several thousand dollars have been banded out by the veterans themselves to chums whom they knew to be suffering, should not be allowed to do that work. We should do it from the coffers of the country, and I believe all those and more can be taken care of. Therefore, I should like to see this committee or some other committee undertake in the future a programme of a more generous nature than the one outlined, although this one may do as a temporary expedient. I am not going, at the present time, to say that I am going to vote	against it; until I see
something that is better, I reserve an open mind upon that. Some hon. members will say: Well, how are you going to get the funds for all this? For once I am going to astonish the House by agreeing with the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Burnham). A soldier loan will be *the solution of the whole question, if I do not miss my guess. If this committee will formulate a programme something like the one I have outlined-and it is a very imperfect one and can be embellished and made much better than the few suggestions I have given-and if they will tell the Minister of Finance that they want $250,000,000 or $300,000,000 to carry out that programme and ask him to put a soldier loan before the country, I venture to say that not one-half the canvassing will be required to get that amount that is being required to secure the present loan, and that is being taken up very well. I believe there will be, on the part of the people of this country, a rush that will astonish this Government or any other Government that goes before the people for such a loan. There is deep down in the hearts of our citizens a feeling that the best we can do is not enough to pay the debt we owe to the splendid men who have been over there, and who have laid down their lives for King and country. In that way you would have $250,000,000 or $300,000,000 as a soldier fund. I would not, I am free to say, pay that out all at once. Let the loan be on the same terms on which the ordinary loans are floated, and if it be not necessary to pay out the whole amount, if the loan is subscribed or over-subscribed, let whatever is not immediately required be kept as a nest egg, because the point so far as I see it is this: Even if you do all that is suggested to-day; yes, if you give the $2,000 of a gratuity to every man, you have not finally got rid of this question. This question is going to be more or less with us as long as this generation lives, and no one must run away with the idea that we
are going to settle it all at one gulp, because that cannot be done. Many may disagree with me, but I think I have 'been in as close touch with the soldier and what is the problem for some of them as most men have. Many a soldier who has come home, feeling thankful to God that he has got back safe and sound, as he says, quite well, and who has taken his discharge, has wakened up a few weeks or a few months afterwards to the fact that he is not the same man as he thought he was. In other words, some disability or some wound that he has had overseas has recurred. I know of cases where men got their discharge and thought they were all right, and in a few months they were all wrong again. The country owes those men a debt, and after all that those men have endured, which was almost more than flesh and blood can endure, they are not the same. Every one knows that if he puts forth frantic efforts to carry through a certain great work, the excitement and vim that he puts into it carries him through for the moment but a few hours afterwards when he begins to rest he finds he is a done-out man, and that is what has happened to many of our returned soldiers. Under these circumstances, I say that this question is going to be with us for a long time to come, and I am propounding mow to the chairman and members of the committee a policy which I hope they will take into their kindly consideration. I am putting it forward in the most generous and kindly spirit that I can. I have made these few suggestions on the spur of the moment so to speak, but they have had some consideration from me in times past, and perhaps they will be found to be of some little value in indicating the manner in which, we should approach this question.


James Alexander Calder: The hon. member (Mr. Cockshutt), during the course of his remarks, has deal with the possibility of raising, say $250,000,000 or $300,000,000 by way of a special soldier bond issue. He has not touched the other side of the question. We must not forget the fact that if that money is raised, the interest on it must be paid in future, and I should like to get his views as to the manner in which the country is going to raise that annual interest. If I may be permitted just for a moment, I showed yesterday that the annual expenditures of Canada prior to the war amounted to $127,000,000; that those have grown this year to $270,00,000; that we have at the present time commitments

which will in all probability approximate $700,000,000, commitments for which the money must be borrowed, the present Victory Loan of $300,000,000 being part of that; that the interest on that $700,000,000 will be in the neighbourhood of $38,000,000 which, if added to the $270,000,000, makes over $300,000,000. . If we issue a further loan of $300,000,000-, making a total of $1,000,000,000 within this year, we shall -have a further annual interest charge of -somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15,000,000. Assuming that what the hon. gentleman says is true, namely, that you could go out and actually get this $250,000,000 or $300,000,000, we must not overlook the fact that that annual interest charge must be met and must be raised by taxation.
I for one would be glad to get the hon. gentleman's views as to how we are to secure that annual amount of money that would be absolutely necessary to take care of the interest charge.
Mr. 'COCKSHUTT: The minister has made quite a speech, and I am not sure that I followed it all. I have had a good deal to do with this Government in the last fifteen years, and I have seen them pay off a great .many loans by floating other loans.
I do not suppose that we can obviate the same course in the present case. We certainly cannot do it out of current revenue, and I think I made it abundantly clear that it was unfair to ask this generation even to try to pay off the obligations we are under.


James Alexander Calder: What about the interest?


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. minister -thinks it is necessary to suggest ways of raising the $16,000,000 that might be required to pay the interest on the $300,000,000 which I propose. Well, I think it would be fair to take a smtTll portion of that amount, not more than, say, a third or a quarter, out of current revenues. Possibly it may not be practicable to take it out of current revenue immediately, but that can be done within the near future when Canada is once more on a normal basis, and when the revenue of the country will take care of all expenditures and leave us a good surplus. I think I have heard the Minister of Finance in the last two or three years declare that there was a surplus over expenditure of anywhere from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000. I have a fair recollection of having heard those figures given to the House, Well, if that is the case in such times as we have been experiencing, is it

not reasonable to suppose that if we are willing, as we must be, to submit to heavy taxation for some years to come, we shall have a considerable surplus to apply in the way the minister has suggested ? While I would not apply it all on the soldiers' loan. I would apply a fair portion of it in that direction, which might run from two and-a-half to five million dollars per annum. In proportion to the amounts we have raised, three hundred million dollars is comparatively small. We have been accustomed from time to time to float one loan to pay another, and we shall have to do that in the future with regard to railways and many other undertakings in the country. Every one knows that we cannot pay it out of current revenue, and I do not think it is expected that we should. This $300,000,000 could be raised and the interest taken care of. As I have tsaid I do not advise that it should all be paid out at once, but from time to time as circumstances dictate. But we should have it available in order that we might not run any risk of tiring the country by continually appealing to itj. I do not know whether the minister feels that I have endeavoured to answer his question, but in my opinion I have made my position fairly clear.
I was going to say in conclusion that whether or not we give a further cash gratuity to the soldiers-and I am not sure that a little further cash gratuity would not be proper; at any rate I have a very open mind on that point-I would be generous and would suggest that we should do our utmost to meet the wishes of the returned men. And if they feel that they need two or three months' gratuity for the coming winter, which is likely to be a rather hard one, so far as I am concerned I would try to put up my share of it and would persuade as many as possible of my friends to do the same. I trust, Sir, that difficulties in the way will not intimidate us, and hinder us from doing what appears to me to be a plain duty. It is easy to conjure up mountains of difficulties and call upon the rocks to cover us and the hills to shield us. But the responsibility rests upon us and we must shoulder it bravely and manfully. I for one want to deal with the situation generously even if I go down in the attempt. As a taxpayer I think I am contributing to the State a good round figure, and I do not agree with my hon. friend* from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) in the view that the money can all be raised out of the manufacturers, because I can tell him that from 50 to 75 per cent of the manufacturers not only have not profiteered during the

war but they can affirm that their profits have been away below what they were in ordinary times. I do not want my good friend .to forget that point. I am supporting him on one point, but I want to keep his pride down a little by disagreeing with him on the other.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: What about the Dominion Textile, for instance?


William Foster Cockshutt: Oh, well, there may be a few odd cases in which no doubt profits have been made, but let me say that the whole matter in this respect is vastly exaggerated. It is done for a purpose, often to inflame one section of the community against another in a very unjust way. But after all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, the number of profiteers, yes, the number of millionaires in this country, is very much smaller than is generally supposed. My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) who is generally very well informed not only in regard to his own position but in respect of his neighbour's, accused me the other day of being in control of millions, and I take this opportunity of telling the hon. gentleman that he has been guilty of very gross exaggeration; and under the circumstances I rather deem it an insult in so far as I cannot "produce the goods."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would be willing to
accept whatever the hon. gentleman has.


William Foster Cockshutt: Well, I would draw
on myself to pay my share of our debt to the returned soldier, and I am not quite sure that my good friend can qualify in that respect. It is true that some members of his family did well, as I know, and I do not want to cast any imputations. I think it is the last thing that should be done in this House. Let a man be judged by his own conscience as to whether he has done all that he could have done in the war. But I think we will all confess that, having done all that we could do and sacrificed to the extent that we did sacrifice, we have not equalled the contribution that was made by the boys who went overseas to the cause for which we entered the war. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been led aside.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Do I understand the hon. gentleman's position to be this, that he would raise the soldiers' loan for the purpose of taking care, first, of the wounded and disabled men in Canada; and, secondly, to provide for necessitous cases that may ailse during the present winter, and any
fu nre cases for which we should properly care?


William Foster Cockshutt: That is substantially the proposal I made. But there were about six propositions altogether.


James Arthurs: Does that differ from the position of the committee, that we should take care of all necessitous cases for the present winter, with the recommendation that this work should be continued; and also the recommendation in regard to wounded and disabled men?


William Foster Cockshutt: It does not differ from the report in that the work I have suggested is provided for therein. But in my judgment it is not sufficiently provided for in the report. I know that a big attempt has been made to do it, probably a generous attempt, but. it is thought by the soldiers that it is not sufficient, and I am asking that good and generous though these things are, they be improved to the extent I have proposed. Consideration must be taken of the increase all along the line in the cost of living and of the difficulties that the women encounter in carrying on their domestic arrangements and looking after small children that have been left with them. This aspect of the situation appeals strongly to me, and I cannot over-emphasize it. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have been diverted from the closing Temarks I was going to make. I hope the committee will take the suggestion I have made into their serious and most earnest consideration, and that they will view it in the light of an earnest and sincere proposal to better the condition of the soldier, who feels that the provisions that are outlined in the report do not go far enough. I would be quite willing to have the committee continue their labours and elaborate a .scheme more in consonance with the suggestions I have made.
I believe that it is more their duty to report the scheme and point out what ought to be done than it is their duty to provide means for raising the money. If they will come back to the House and tell us that they want $200,000,000 or $300,000,000, then it is the duty of the House and the Government to see to it that the money is obtained, and II am very sure that it can be.
Mr. O. TURGEiON (Gloucester):	Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this question before it is put to the vote of the House. I do so on my own responsibility, without dictation or advice and only from a deep sense of my duty as the representative of a constituency that is known all over

the country as having done its duty nobly from- the beginning to the last day of the war. I know that it is not the intention of Parliament or the country to claim to be able to compensate the soldiers of Canada for the generous sacrifice they have made in going across the ocean and offering their lives in defence of British institutions. Any sum of money that we can offer, even- rum ning into the millions, cannot discharge the debt which we owe to these young men for the noble sacrifices they have made. I appeal to this House, as I have appealed to the people of my own constituency, that we must measure our gratitude to our soldiers according to the means of the country. When I say the means of the country I say our means should not be limited by considerations which might hold good in ordinary times. We have heard high authorities, among them members of the House and the Government saying-in appealing to the young men of Canada-and saying approvedly as far as I am concerned*-that Canada would give, not only the last man, but the last dollar, that the Government would do everything possible to win the war, even to placing Canada in a state of bankruptcy. I have shared these sentiments. Now, as to Canada being in suoh a state of bankruptcy which would operate to prevent her discharging her duty to her soldiers, only forty-eight hours ago this House declared that Canada was not in a condition of bankruptcy. Therefore, I feel that it is my duty to say that something should be done for the returned soldier to meet his legitimate demands. Nobly have they gone, nobly have they come back, nobly have they remained citizens of Canada, and British citizens, and nobly have they endured sufferings which are incalculable and in many cases scarcely realized. We are not to judge of the 400,000 or 500,000 soldiers by the expressions of two or three who have become nervous by reason of hardships suffered during the w-ar.
My hon. friend (Mr. Cookshutt) said that many of the returned soldiers apparently physically strong and who considered themselves as being physically as strong -as they were before they went away have come hack, after having undergone -the test of endurance over there, not the men that they were four years ago. We have bad instances -of that everywhere. I have had it in my own experience, in my own home, in my own constituency. Therefore, 1 say that the returned soldier who has been in the trenches in France a year, three months, six months, is not the man that he was
IMr. Tureeon.l
when he went over and who did his part with that courage, endurance and determination whi-ch was in- his body as well as in his heart.
This country is in duty bound to recognize such sacrifice. The millions of dollars that we may vote in this House are nothing at all compared to the sacrifices of these men. It is not a large amount that the reasonable soldier expects, but in the midst of the unrest which prevails in Canada as well as in the United States, Great Britain and all over the world as a -consequence of this war, everyone more or less party to it, it is not unnatural to find that the soldier expects that generous recognition be granted according to the means of the country. A grant of $2,500 to each man is n-ot necessary and n-ot desired by the majority. I admit that the committee that has been working on this soldiers' re-establishment have had before -them for their consideration figures illustrative of the responsibilities of the people that certainly did cause amazement to them as it did to every citizen of Canada. -But let us not say that we cannot discover some means of expressing the sentiment of gratitude that we owe to our returned soldiers.
In the Maritime Provinces, in New Brunswick, in- Nova Scotia, in Prince Edward Island, the younger generation, the men from every part of every county of those three provinces, responded t-o the call as freely and generously as they did from any part of Ontario or the West. They, born Canadians, joined with the British-born whose ambition it was to join the Canadian corps in the West. The young men of these provinces were all Canadian boys, boys of English, French, Scotch, Irish-Canadian and French Acadian descent. Every family did its duty in these provinces- according to its ability, so much so that in my own constituency 1,300 volunteers, nearly all the sons of farmers and fishermen, responded to the call of their country. In their generosity they are not claiming t-o be indulged, but they will appreciate what is done for them and in the measure of what is done for them they will become better citizens and more devoted to -Canada and the British Empire. I do not understand that the returned men want to go as far in their demands as has been suggested by my h-on. friend, the supposed millionaire from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). I have before me the suggestion of -Mr. J. W. Margeson, who places the total amount at $200,000,000, -so that $100,000,000 more than we purpose to vote by this legislation would

make a fair distribution with which soldiers generally, whether farmers, fishermen -or industrial workers, would be contented and which they would accept as a final recognition on the part of Canada.
The committee favours the appropriation of 'forty or fifty	million dollars
for the purpose of meeting some of the	soldiers'	demands.	Why	not addto that 8150,000,000 which would bring the	amount	near the	total	suggestedby the Mr.	Margeson.	Then	I claim
there would be enough to satisfy the soldiers and put an end to the unrest which now exists among them. We have to consider that unrest; it has been engendered by a spirit of fervid devotion to our national interests and therefore we cannot afford to treat that sentiment lightly. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization, who presented the report, knows that if there is one man in the House who would be inclined to give it sympathetic consideration it would be the member for Gloucester; but in this matter I cannot be actuated by merely personal considerations-I must perform my duty to my constituency whose sons responded so nobly to their country's call in the recent war. The soldiers have acted generously, they are willing to accept twenty-five per cent of the outlay that would be involved in meeting all the demands presented. Why not make up our minds on the subject at once, and act accordingly. I do not say that I will vote for the amendment pledging us to the amount of $400,000,000, but I do say that when the Bill to be founded on the resolution which has been introduced comes before the House, if nobody else submits an amendment, I will move one requiring a grant of 8150,000,000 to be distributed as a gratuity and as an evidence of the best that Canada can do in this matter. I feel sure that it would be accepted by all the veterans' associations in this country.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):: 1
was slightly disappointed with ,the remark of my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) when he suggested that this matter could not be finally dealt with at the present stage. I had every anticipation that some arrangement might now be arrived at whereby the matter could be finally settled, and I still entertain some hope in that regard. While I quite concur in many of the favourable things that have been said with respect to the report we are now considering, I must say it is not quite satisfactory to me. Nor is the amendment which, has been moved quite satisfactory, either, and therefore, I have to decide what I shall do under the circumstances. The report seems to assume an inability on our part to raise the necessary money provided the decision is reached to give a further gratuity to the soldiers. I do not for a moment agree that this country is bankrupt, or nearly bankrupt. I refuse to agree for a moment with the idea that we cannot raise the money that is required even to pay the largest amount that has been suggested. While I would not approve of paying that maximum amount, I still believe that our financial position would enable us to .raise the money that would be needed providing we decide that it should be raised. I do not think the inability to raise the money, which members of the committee seem to take for granted, really exists. I believe the people of Canada to-day are enjoying a higher .standard of living than they have ever *enjoyed before. I believe they are richer to-day, and tha't Canada is richer to-day, notwithstanding the debt that hangs over it, than ever before. The financial condition of that part of the country from which I come depends almost entirely upon the yearly returns from the farm crops. During the last four years the crop there has been unusualy light, it has been worse than the average crop throughout Canada. The farmers there are prosperous but were it not for the war we would not be in that condition-we would be hard up. Because of the increased prices, resulting from the war, the country is in a very good financial position; and I am satisfied that the people in that part of Canada-although I do not think they have fared as well by reason of the war as have the people generally throughout the rest of Canada- would be willing to pay any reasonable amount that may be required in order to settle the claims of the soldiers, provided they felt those claims were reasonable and that they should be paid. I am satisfied that the people of Canada generally will look upon the question in the same manner.	,
I do not think the Canadian people have-yet given in taxes until the giving hurts. Our young men who went across the sea did give until their sacrifices hurt and hurt badly. Now, in view of what I have stated, I fail to see why we should be in such a terrible position that nothing further is to be taken from us in the form of taxes than has been already exacted. Some suggestions have been made as to the methods of raising the money that may be required,



and of course such suggestions are always in order. It is quite true that death and taxes are the surest things in this world, and they are also the most unpopular. At the same time, I think the idea of paying taxes is more popular in this country than it ever was before. I believe the people of Canada are more ready to pay the taxes that are required than was ever previously the case in our history. I have listened with a great deal of attention to the remarks of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization in presenting this report, and I must agree with other hon. gentlemen that he delivered an admirable speech. It was a wonderful speech and very clear and explicit in its character. Nevertheless, it contained some things with which I cannot agree. I find myself very often agreeing with my hon. friend (Mr. Calder), and have done so during the whole of his political life; but in this case I cannot agree with him in some things and there are some matters in the report in which I do not concur. I notice, however, that the report, dealing with certain suggestions as to the way in which the necessary taxes may be raised, does not state positively, that these suggestions are not practicable and may not be worked out. The committee does not say the suggestions cannot be "worked out and I am inclined to think they can. I do not think the House will for a moment consider the idea of raising the necessary money by lotteries, or any such schemes. The House would not permit that or vote for anything of the kind, .so I think we can dismiss such suggestions without further comment. Other methods, however, have been suggested. They are referred to at page 45 of the report and it is in regard to these that the committee refrains from saying they cannot be worked out in such a way as to yield the necessary revenue. My hon. friend from North Simco-e (Mr. Currie) has a pet way of his own for raising money-he would obtain it by further protection and customs taxation. Now I do not intend to enter into a fiscal argument with my hon. friend.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not physical argument?
Mr. LEVI 'THOMSON: There is no need for .physical argument; I am too old for that and perhaps, too. wise. I was about to say -that I do not think the people of the West-although they are opposed to protection as a rule-will object to paying taxes in any way that can he conceived for the purpose of helping out our men, pro-

vided tho.se taxes go into the revenue of the country.
The great objection I would have to the suggestion of my hon. friend is that it would work out that we would have to pay three dollars in taxes for every dollar that went towards the relief of this present situation, and I do not purpose to argue it any further than that.
But I would suggest another .plan. Speaking for the people of Saskatchewan, I say that they do not object to paying their share of any reasonable amount that is rerequired to reinstate our returned men. If, Mr. Speaker, you want to raise that money by a customs tariff, you can raise only a certain amount, .because if you go beyond a reasonable tariff limit your receipts of revenue will decline. I doubt very much if any large measure of relief could he obtained in that way. However, if .it was found necessary to raise the customs tariff, I, would not abject very seriously to some slight increases, provided our manufacturing friends would agree to pay an excise duty equal at least to one-half of the customs duty that, we are paying. Even then they will still have sufficient protection left, provided they are on their jobs as they should be. If we adopt that plan I do not think we need worry any further about the raising of sufficient revenue by way of taxation to meet the requirements of any scheme that we may decide to adopt for the reinstatement of our returned men.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Will my hon. friend permit me a question? What does he think of the suggestion to raise the money toy a special tax upon assessed property-land all over the country?


Levi Thomson: I would not object. I do not pretend to have given any mature consideration to the scheme, tout I am inclined to think that a land tax might ibe a very good way of raising a portion of the money.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: On all landed property?


Levi Thomson: I am not prepared to say that that would not he a good way of raising the money. But I am not the Finance Minister, and I am afraid that such a suggestion from me with my. limited experience would not be particularly valuable. But the point I want to make is that so long as our people have the- money-and they undoubtedly have the money to an extent they never had before-then it is the duty of the Government to get as much of that money as they require; and there is

no doubt /that our people are just as ready, if not more ready, than they ever were before in our history to pay whatever is required.
We are told that it would not be safe to increase the business or income tax by reason of the fact that we are now charging as high or a higher rate than is charged in the United States; and we are told that if we do charge a much higher rate than is charged in the United States our manufacturing and business and financial men would desert Canada and no money would be invested here. Now, I come from western Canada and live near enough to the boundary line to know that the farmers to the south by reason of our peculiar laws are very much better off than are our Canadian farmers. I know that by reason of our customs tariff, and other things which I need not detail, the farmers of Saskatchewan would be millions of dollars better off provided they were in the same position as the farmers in Dakota. But I have not yet seen our Saskatchewan farmers driving across the line; they have not deserted the ship. The mere fact that they are not as well treated as the American farmers has not induced them to desert Canada. I am not prepared to admit that the manufacturers and business men of Canada are less loyal than our farmers, and therefore I believe that their loyalty is strong enough to induce them to meet all demands that may be made on them in order 'that our soldiers may be fairly treated.
It stands to reason that we in Canada in order to pay our war obligations will have to raise more money according to our ability than the people of the United States by reason of the fact that we were much longer in the war than our neighbours were. We complain about the amount of money we have to raise; and that is like complaining of our financial position. Let us compare our position with that of the people of France, of Belgium, or of Germany, and we must at once admit that our financial lot is very much better than theirs,-in fact, there can be no reasonable comparison drawn, the difference in our favour being so overwhelming. We hear this complaint all the time: we cannot stand any mo:re taxation, we have reached the limit. That complaint reminds me of my boyhood days when I went out to western Canada in 1882, when we had droughts or frosts practically every year, and we heard people grumbling: well, if this year is not better than last year you will find no one
in the country. Next year turned out to be worse than last year, |but ^till the people stayed on. We do not know what we can endure until we have been put to the test. I think we are hardly "enduring" at all in the matter of taxation, and it seems to me that it is time we were hit a little harder and made to endure more. The sooner that happens the better for our country and for ourselves.
The amendment is not altogether to my liking. As I understand it it is for payment out of the full sums mentioned in appendix (1); in other words, the suggestion of the Great War Veterans. If I understand correctly the action of the Great War Veterans, they merely made a suggestion which would be the basis of discussion; I do not think that they intended any amount mentioned by them to be the irreducible minimum. The committee,, however, appear to hav.e taken that as tha view of the Great War Veterans, and in that respect I think they have not correctly interpreted the suggestion presented to them. Now, if the mover of the amendment will agree to change it so as to include after the words "appendix (1) of said report" the following words, "with such modifications of the said plan as may be agreed upon," I feel disposed to support it; otherwise I feel very doubtful about it.
Now, we have been told about many things that have been done. We have been told about advances to soliders to enable them to buy land, and so on. I believe that the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act should be dealt with an a business basis. These advances should not be looked upon as gifts. If we consider them as gifts, we shall! be obliged to look upon any other sucl? advances in the same way. As I understand it, the reason we are providing special advantages for those who are willing to go on the land is found in the fact that for years there has been too great a movement from the country to the ci'ty and the need of the day is that we get the people back to the land. Any grants, therefore, which are being made to soldiers under the Soldier Settlement Act are being made in the public interest, not especially in the interest of the returned men. I think that is a fair way of looking at it.
In the last Parliament, before the election, I expressed- a view that I want to express again to-day. It is this [DOT] I can see no justification for giving less to private soldiers who fought at the front than ordinary labourers are receiving at home.

But we have been paying them less; therefore, if we are not bankrupt, the moral obligation is upon us to make good that deficiency. The private isoildier in toe trenches received approximately $400 a year, his board and sgme clothing. Those of us who had friends over there know that we had to send certain clothing to them, and that if we did not they had to get it otherwise. I cannot undertake to say positively what is the average rate of wage paid to the ordinary unskilled labourer and t-he farm labourer in Canada generally, but I do know something of what the rate has been in my own part of the .-country. From the knowledge I have and the information I have obtained I be-i lieve that the unskilled labourer at home, if he works steadily, as the soldiers were supposed to work at the front, could earn $700 a year, with his board and as much clothing as the soldier got. That makes a difference of approximately $300 a year between what the private soldier actually got and what they would have received had they remained here and worked as unskilled labourers. I do not know the average length of service of the men who went overseas. I do not think it was as long as two and a half years, but let ns assume that it was two and a half years. During that period they would be $750 short of what they would have received at' home as unskilled labourers. Now, we may deduct from that the amount that we are paying to the men under the present gratuity arrangement, which, in the case of a man who served two and a half years, would be, I think, $350. That leaves $400 to which the private soldier is entitled on this basis. I do not think it would come to that much, but even if it did, I do not think the payment of that amount would ruin the country. I do not think that our financial position is such as to cause us any worry as to the result of paying out such a sum.
When I spoke of this in the last Parliament someone suggested that I and others who were taking this ground had not given consideration to the enormous amount that the Government was paying to dependents of soldiers at the Front. I do not think that that is a fair way to deal with the question. It is possible that we paid as much to the few men at the Front who left dependents behind them, and to the dependents of these men, as we would be called upon to pay under the plan that I suggest. But we must remember that unmarried men with no . dependents were the most 5 p.m. numerous among the various classes of men at the Front. As 
a matter of fact, a large majority of the men who went to the Front were unmarried and had nobody at home to support. These men did not receive within $300 of what they could have earned as unskilled labourers working at home in perfect safety. These are the men I am speaking of in the main;
I am dealing with this one phase of the question. I see no justification, provided we are not bankrupt, for refusing to pay an amount which, we must all agree, we are morally entitled to pay.
The necessity of raising this money at once has been brought up as a bugaboo. The member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) has met that suggestion. If it were necessary to raise money at once under some such plan as suggested by the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Burnham) I think it could be done. But I do not think it is necessary to do that; I do not think it is necessary to raise any very much greater sum than is involved in the recommendations of the committee. I do not think it would be necessary to pay cash in most cases; we could give bonds or pay at some future time. Of course, if it is deemed to be the best way to pay the cash all at once, I would be satisfied; the money could be raised as suggested by the member for Brantford. But if it be deemed unncessary to pay the money at once-and I fancy that in most cases it would be unnecessary-the only cases that we would have to deal with at the time would be needy cases, and these are largely provided for by the Teport. In these needy cases the sum due to the men might be paid and charged up to them.
Again, there would be no extra money to raise in the case of those who are receiving the benefit of loans from the Government under the Soldier Settlement Act. The only cases in respect of which money would require to he raised, outside of the cases dealt with in the report, would be those of young men who require assistance in the line of education. In doing that I do not think it would be advisable to grant any cash assistance to young men who are attending universities or other educational institutions unless it could be clearly shown that they could not by any other reasonable means obtain the amounts required. I do not think that the amount required under that head would be very large. _
I want to dissociate myself entirely from any such suggestion as was made in this House last night with regard to the returned men getting the cold shoulder. I wish also to dissociate myself entirely from any

suggestion that the members of this House are trying to sidestep or dodge the issue. Perhaps I have a different way of looking at the matter from that in which many other members view it. I do not for one moment contend that I am more sympathetic with the returned soldier or one bit more interested in him than any other member of the House. I am satisfied that there is not.a single hon. member who is not anxious that everything should be done that can reasonably be done for the returned man, and who is not entirely in sympathy with the returned man and his requirements. The mere fact that some other hon. members may take a different view from that which I take is no reason why I should question their sincerity of purpose. The question is only one of what should and what can be done. While I may say that I admire very much the speech of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization ((Mr. Calder) in presenting this report, there is one thing in his speech that I did not like, and that is, if I might put it in this way, the veiled suggestion of resignation by the Government provided that the Government is required to make provision for any gratuities. It was a veiled suggestion pretty cleverly put forward. We are getting a little fed up on that sort of thing in this House. I remember a debate in this House in 1918 when we were told that if we did not accept an amendment brought forward by the Government with regard to titles, the Gov-vernment would resign. That was during the war. I voted on that occasion with the Government because I felt that if the Government forgot that we were at war, I was not justified in forgetting that we were at war and that it was necessary under the circumstances to carry on. During last session there was a discussion on the Budget, as the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) will remember, and I found in the newspapers and I heard around the House the threat hurled out that if we western "bolters" were not mighty careful, if we did not stay with the Government, the Government would resign and go to the country. We have now the veiled suggestion that if the Government is asked to have money raised to provide for gratuities, the Government may not be prepared to carry on.


James Alexander Calder: If the hon. gentleman will allow me just for a moment, I wish to say that there was no veiled suggestion at all.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, it was very plain.


James Alexander Calder: It was a very plain statement of fact. There was no attempt to conceal it whatever.


Levi Thomson: The minister says that it was a plain statement of fact. Perhaps that might look better, but I do not think it is any better.	[DOT]
Mr. MeMASTER:	Euphemism.


Levi Thomson: I do not think
the Government of this country has a right, under the present circumstances, to refuse to carry on and to do so in accordance with the wishes of this Parliament. Our men at the front did not find things always to suit them, but they carried on, and what would have happened to us if they had not carried on? The obligation to carry on is just as strong on the Government as it was on them, so that I hope we have heard the last of this threat, veiled or otherwise, of resignation.
Mr. MeMASTER: Why support the Government then?


Levi Thomson: My hon. friend
is raising questions that are not pertinent to this issue. I am prepared and ready to discuss those questions when the proper time comes. My hon. friend has had some opportunity to know the reasons why the western farmers are taking the stand that they are taking, and he should not be asking those questions now after his experience.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are the western farmers satisfied with this Government?


Levi Thomson: Those questions are not pertinent to the matter which we are discussing. I am prepared to discuss them at the proper time with the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). I would like to see this question settled now, and I believe that if the House is prepared to meet the representations of the returned men in a reasonable way, it can be settled now. I do not want any " Fenian Raid " style of doing things, rewarding the men after they are dead. I want these men paid as soon as possible whatever gratuities they are going to receive.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What does the hon. member think they should receive?


Levi Thomson: I have already given the figures, and if the hon. member was not in the House, I am not sure that I am entitled to delay the House in going over my speech again. My suggestion was this: That we are in honour bound to pay our private soldiers who fought in the

trenches an amount which, added to what they have already received, would make the total' amount equivalent to what ordinary labourers at home were getting. My hon. friend should know as well as I about what that difference would be. In saying what I thought the difference would be, I said that we were entitled to deduct from that the amount which was paid in gratuities. My rough estimate would be that it would be something less than $400 per man. I am satisfied that if we adopt and act upon this report, the question will not be finally settled; that we shall have to deal with the matter again and again, and that the sooner we settle it, the better. No matter of this kind in a civilized country like this is finally settled until the settlement is just, and with all respect to the committee, I do not think their report provides for a just settlement.


Mr. EDWARD WALTER NESBITT (Oxford North):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. L. Thomson) says that he thinks the men should be paid the difference between what they were paid and the amount received by ordinary labourers. I think that is the substance of his remarks. He estimates the amount that they were paid at $400; and if I remember correctly, he estimates the amount that the ordinary labourer would earn at about $700. In the first place, let me say that that would be paying for service, and in my judgment it would be absolutely impossible in this or any other country to pay our men for the service they rendered, because no men would go through what they went through for payment in dollars and cents. I think that does away with my hon. friend's argument that the men should be paid for service, and I can understand his argument in no other way. To answer that argument, however, let me say this: He estimates that they got $400. They get $1.10 a day, which would be $401.50; they get their board, which would be $110, and clothing equal to $100, or a total of $611. It would not leave much, according to his estimate of what the ordinary labourer gets, if you take it on that basis. Of course, as an hon. member suggests to me, they got the gratuity. But I want to refer for a moment to what the committee recommends. It recommends, in the first place, that the same gratuity be paid to the R.A.F. man and other Imperial units as was paid to the C.E.F. men. We thought that nothing but fair, because, after

all, they were Canadians, no matter what service they were in. They were fighting for the defence of the country, whether they were in the direct service of Canada or in Imperial units, and this recommendation, I think, is only just. We also recommended that the transportation expenses of those who came home previous to the signing of the -armistice should be paid in order to put them on an equal footing with those who came home after the signing of the armistice and whose transportation was paid. We recommended, further, that free clothing in the Soldiers' -Civil Re-establishment hospitals should be given in so far as the management of those hospitals thought just. We recommended pay and allowances to trainees taken on the strength of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and subsequently not approved. I may illustrate that feature of the report. Sometimes a man applied to be taken on the strength of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment in some of the outlying districts and afterwards his application was not passed by the head office in Ottawa. While we could not recommend that simply because a man made an application he should be paid, we did recommend that if he was taken on by one of the outside authorities and afterwards his application was not accepted by the head office at Ottawa, he should be paid during the time he was in service, which was not done before. We made a recommendation in regard to the sub-normal and neurological cases, in regard to which I personally found some difficulty in satisfying myself. They present a problem which no doubt must be met in some way by whatever Government is in power in the future, and I think that sub-normal and neurological cases must be treated whether they occur among soldiers or civilians. It is a menace that must be grappled with. How, we were not prepared to say; but in the meantime we authorized the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment to take care of these men properly and see that they are housed, fed, given medical treatment, and so forth, and suggest that the necessary money be raised to do that work. We found that some of these sub-normal men had been taken on the strength by doctors when it_was obvious that they should have been rejected. In my judgment, it was more or less a crime for some of them to be passed into military service, and they are consequently thrown upon the country and we must take care of them. In regard to necessitous cases, it was brought to our attention that in some instances pensions were not quite sufficient

for widows, and widows with children, and we recommend that the proper department should look into these cases. We recommend also that the cheques of the men who served in the Imperial forces should be cashed at par, for the reason that I have given before, that they were fighting for the country notwithstanding the fact that they were in the Imperial service. It must be borne in mind, too, that the reservists were to all intents and purposes Canadian citizens who answered the call. Another suggestion has reference to loans to retrained disabled men and to provide for tools and equipment. The reason for the restrictive nature of this recommendation is the fact that it was absolutely impossible, at all events in our judgment, to make a loan to every one who might want to be re-established in business, because in many cases the applicant might know nothing whatever about the business for which he wanted the loan, and it would only mean a loss both to himself and the country. These men who have been undergoing vocational training are the disabled soldiers and not sound men; and for that class of men, who might want to start in some small business, we recommend a loan repayable in five years, in order to enable them to buy necessary tools. Then we come to the vexed question of the care of the unemployed during this winter. It was stated very definitely that there might be a certain amount of unemployment in some sections of the country during the next winter, with consequent hardships, and to cover this problem we recommended that a sum of $40,000,000 be provided; we recommended for gratuities for the R.A.F. and other Imperial men, $9,000,000 and to provide for transportation for the dependents of man who returned previous to the armistice, $1,000,000, making a total of $50,000,000. The interest on that $50,000,000 at 51 per cent has to be added to the interest that is to be paid yearly by this country. Now, we thought that we should take care only of those of whom it was absolutely necessary for us to provide for during the coming winter. We did not propose, as some people suggest, that every one who applied should be taken care of, but we recommended that the money should be used for the benefit of dependents and for the assistance of men who could not get employment. The basis of the success of the country is after all the workingman, whether he works with his head or his hand. And every man who can get employment and support himself should be afforded the opportunity to do so. It
is not in the interests of the country-and I say this with all deference to any one who may say anything to the contrary- that any man should be encouraged to be idle if he can get employment. Notwithstanding what has been said to the contrary, we did give a generous gratuity to the men. It was said this afternoon that Australia had done better for its returned soldiers than we have done. But we have looked into that question carefully and we are convinced that no other country in the world has done as well for its returned soldiers as Canada has done. No other country has given as generous pensions to disabled soldiers as we have given. We had the comparative tables of pensions before us in the pensions committee last spring and this fact was established. It is quite true that in estimating the pensions in England they are a little more generous in some respects in regard to disability cases. I am not speaking of death pensions, but of disability pensions. They are a little more generous in classifying than we are. But in every case, though their classification may be higher, our allotment is very much more favourable. I have the tables in my desk, and if I had thought that I would be speaking on this subject this afternoon I would have brought them in order that they might be incorporated in Hansard.
We did give a gratuity. What for?-For the purpose of allowing men to become reestablished in civil life. The object of the gratuity was to carry the men for the period ' between when they were discharged and when they were re-established in civil life. All the men who carefully used that gratuity have become established in civil life as far as I know.
Suppose we grant the demands of the returned soldiers in one form or another, suppose we give greater gratuities at the present time, what guarantee have we that those who wasted those gratuities will use future gratuities to any better purpose than they did the last? What guarantee have we, if we grant $2,500 apiece that they will not come back? Some hon. gentlemen who have spoken this afternoon said that this was not the end. I doubt if it will be the end. It should be the end. We are taking care of the men who cannot get work this winter and we are recommending. that the Government should provide some further machinery to take care of the men who cannot get work. Is there an hon. member who will say that the returned soldier, or any other man, should not get

work if he can? If he can get work, he independent and be a man again, I see no reason why any Government should be paternal and keep him longer than is necessary to keep him until he can get work. Although there may be many places in Canada where men cannot get work this winter, the province of Ontario to-day can employ all the men who are unemployed in this country and it will be glad to get them. Factories in Ontario from one end of the province to the other are looking for men and they will be glad to get them. There is not a factory manager anywhere in Ontario that will not give the preference to returned men. There is a great deal of talk but after all it is talk.
As to the means of raising more money, we have shown you what the commitments of the country are by these tables that are contained in the report. These tables are as carefully worked out as it is possible for any dozen or twenty men to do it. We went into this question just as carefully as we possibly could and there is no misrepresentation that I know of in the tables. We show you that, over and above the present indebtedness of the country, we have to raise during next year, including the present Victory Loan, $529,000,000 in round figures. We have absolutely been committed. There is the Grand Trunk Pacific deficit and provision for credits to Great Britain. We have to raise these credits. Somebody said the other day that it was to provide for the sale of manufactured goods to Great Britain. Of all the loans we have given to foreign countries and Great Britain not ten per cent is for manufactured goods. It is for foodstuffs that these loans are made. Including these loans the deficit on the Grand Trunk Pacific and the housing scheme that has to be carried out, we will have to raise in round figures $700,000,000. We have to pay the interest on that added to what we have already to pay and that amounts to about $102,000,000. Then we estimate our ordinary expenditure for this year at $270,000,000 and our ordinary revenues at $244,000,000. We still lack a good many millions of dollars and all these small taxes suggested by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Foster) here to-day would be eaten up in a month, they would not fizz on the amount that would be required to make up the ordinary revenues of this country. Then we add to this $700,000,000,	$37,500,000 for next
year and we add the $50,000,000 that we recommend. Then, there is another $22,750,000 or something like that to be added.

We add $40,000,000 to the ordinary expenditure and only about $100,000,000 of the ordinary expenditure is on ordinary account.
It is impossible to avoid this expenditure. It is all right to be generous and it is all right to talk about what we are going to do and to say that we are all willing to pay our taxes. Of course we are, but is there not commonsense when we come to speak of what we can do? After all, is there not a limit to what we can do, just as there is a limit to the taxes that we can pay no matter how willing we are to pay them? It is quite true that a great many people drive around in automobiles and that a great many people live more expensively perhaps than is necessary. But that is none of my business and it is none of the business of anybody in this House as far as I can see. If people pay their way it is nobody's business. There are people who buy automobiles -who should not but that is none of my business so long as they do not buy them from me and ask me to trust them. I am free to discuss these things, and discuss them frankly because I have not increased my expenditure any more than the Lord made me since the war started. When I say " any more than the Lord made me " I mean that I had to pay more because of the advance in the prices of the things I had to eat but I paid no more than I had to.
The suggestion has been made that a part of the money to provide for this grant to the returned soldiers should be raised by imposing a land tax. It is easy for my hon. friend from the West to say that the West is perfectly willing to. submit to a land tax. What authority has he to speak for individuals in the West any more than I have to speak for the people of North Oxford on this question? I can only judge by what I know. I know that people are not anxious to increase their taxation. Nobody that I know of is.
If we sat here and discussed this question for a month, as we did in the committee, we could not give it any graver consideration than we did in the committee; it would be absolutely impossible. No matter how many there were here to discuss it, it could not be considered any more gravely or earnestly or in the interest of the country and the returned soldier than we considered it. We all recognize that it is impossible .to pay the returned soldier. There is no use talking about compensating him for all he went

through. All we can do is to use him justly and to see him reinstated in civil life. Our soldiers were a credit to this country when they were fighting in France and they equally may be a credit to this country now that they have returned by getting to work when they have an opportunity of getting to work and showing the manhood that is in them. They have the opportunity now that they have returned. There is nobody in this country that I know of who will not give the preference to the returned soldier in connection with any work that it is possible for him to do. That is the way. and the only way, they can show the stuff they are made of as they did in France. I do not believe that there should be any unemployment this winter. Let me repeat that if there is any unemployment in the West and the Government will pay for the transportation of those unemployed men to Ontario, we will welcome them with open arms and give them work, regardless of their previous occupation. If they get work, and are independent, does not that make them much better citizens of this country? It is quite true, as my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) said yesterday, that gratuities were given for the Northwest Rebellion, the Fenian Raid and the South African War, but none of those gratuities compare in any way, manner, or form with the gratuities granted by Canada for the great European War, which gratuities were given to help tide the soldier over the period between his discharge and his re-establishment in civil life. It is said that a great many of these men returned home unfitted to immediately reenter civil life. We all know that. All the employers that appeared before the committee recognized the fact, and said they were perfectly willing to give the returned soldier an opportunity to get his nerves steadied. How many men, within the knowledge of each of us, came home, got their discharge, doffed their military clothes and went to work next day. I know dozens of them myself who went to work and asked no favours from anybody. That is the opportunity I think we should give' them.
A great many suggestions for raising money in the form of taxation have been advanced. Every method of taxation that we can employ during the next two or three years will be needed to supply funds for ordinary expenditures that we cannot possibly avoid, meeting the interest on our debt, maintaining the pensions to soldiers, and providing money for Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment and other organizations that
we have created. Every dollar that we can possibly raise by any kind of ingenious taxation that is not a detriment to the country will be needed for these purposes. There is no use in our putting on taxes that will be a detriment to the progress of Canada. It is nonsense to talk about taxing a manufacturer to an extent that will force him to go outof business in thiscountry. That stops the wheels of industry and then there is no employment. We want to keep the wheels of industry in operation and provide employment for industrious men and women, m this country-industrious people are the kind of people we want in Canada. Some hon. gentleman to-day advocated taxing the wages of the alien. How would you tax him? Would you send a constable around, seize him by the scruff of the neck, and take the money from him? And even if you did tax him, he would not pay it. In the case of the alien in Ontario it would be easy for him to evade payment by walking across the suspension bridge at Niagara or at a cost of 5 cents taking the ferry at Windsor. In the West he does not need to do that; if you tax him he simply won't work for you. There is a certain ainount of rough work that has to be done in this country and vce have got to employ aliens for the purpose-Canadians will not do it. Therefore, what is the use of chasing them sense about these things.
Reference has been made to the land grants made to the Fenian Raid veterans. There was a grant made of 150 acres of land up in Northern Ontario and my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) told us last night that in one case a man got $15,000 for his land. That would be for a mineral prospect or mine.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Did the committee give any attention to methods of economy? Did they study how we could *save money by reducing the present expenditures of the Government and so adjust our accounts as to have them in better shape than they now are?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, the committee gave every possible attention to that subject and when I tell my hon. friend that our controllable expenditures, including those for public works, do not amount to more than $105,000,000 yearly, or somewhere in that neighbourhood, he will see how absolutely impossible it was in the committee's judgment to make any curtailment. We were committed owing to the war to warious expenditures that we cannot possibly avoid, and that is why we do not want to enter

upon any further obligations beyond those recommended in this report.


John Howard Sinclair: Are we to understand it is not possible to do anything in the direction of economy and that all these expenditures that are proposed will have to be carried out?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, the expenditures that we are committed to will have to be carried out; I see no way of avoiding them. Nobody in this House or in this country is more opposed to unnecessary expenditure than I am. I do not care whether they are incurred by a government or by an individual, I am opposed to unnecessary expenditure. My early training taught me that when anything was put on my plate I had to eat it, it was waste to do otherwise, and I carried that idea into my ordinary life. The committee did not see where they could recommend that the expenditures could be curtailed in any respect. But that is carrying us into questions which should be threshed out when we are debating the Budget, and I do not want to enter-upon any Budget debate this afternoon. Some hon. member made a complaint as to how the returned soldiers that settled on the land were treated. I think it was my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) who said they could not sell a chicken, a pig, or any other animal without the consent of the Soldiers' Settlement Board. It was absolutely unfair to make a statement of that kind, which will in all probability be reproduced in the press and spread broadcast through the country. Far from being limited in any such way, these men have every opportunity afforded them of selling their products; they are encouraged to raise everything they possibly can, and sell it. It is quite true they are not allowed to " peter out " the stock and implements that the Government have paid for, but they are allowed to sell their surplus just as it is open to any other farmer to do.
My hon. friend (Mr. Currie) wants to raise money by customs taxation. Well, that was more or less selfish. He did not refer to The Income Tax or the Business Profits Tax, but he takes up customs taxation, because, I suppose, it is along the line of protection. The hon. gentleman should remember there is a feeling in this country that the customs tariff is already quite high enough. Ilf you unduly raise the customs duty on an article you do not get a revenue, because that duty is prohibitive in its effect. So there would be no particular revenue from the source the hon. gentleman 
proposes, so far as I can see. But all the suggestions to which I have listened in the last few days, having for their object the raising of additional money, will not yield us the revenue that we require next year, will not do more than meet our ordinary expenditures, regardless altogether of -any further liabilities.
So what is the use of trying to add three or four hundred million dollars or a billion dollars to that expenditure? If it was needed, and if it would do the returned soldier any good, I would be the first one to vote for it, but in my judgment it will not do him any good. You cannot pap-feed men and have a country or a civilization to be proud of. There is a limit to what we can do, and in the judgment of the committee we reached that limit. We believe that we recommended everything that was absolutely necessary in the interests of the returned soldier. The reason why we did not recommend loans to students, to -carpenters or to other mechanics whose studies or industries had been interrupted by the war was simply because it would necessitate such a large expenditure that the country could not possibly meet it. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that many members of the committee were very loath to turn down that proposition, but it was in our judgment an absolute impossibility to raise the money. Therefore the basis of our recommendation is not assistance to the sound man, but assistance to the man who has been disabled. We recommend that everything be done for the disabled men regardless of expense, and we think that everything should be done for the disabled men regardless of expense; on the other hand we think that the able man should get busy-at least I do; and that is the substance of the basis of our report. The able man should get busy, and the country at large-every employer of labour and the Government-should give the returned soldier every possible opportunity and every preference to enable him to get busy. And I am sure that I voice the views of the great mass of employers, whether they be manufacturers, farmers or merchants, when I say that they will from one end of this country to the other give the returned soldier the preference. I ask the returned soldier not to continue seeking further gratuities from the Government, but to get busy, to find out whether he can get work or not. If he cannot get work, then let him apply to somebody with influence in his locality who will endeavour, I have no doubt, to find him work that will be satis-

factory to him, if he is willing to wqrk, and that will also pay him well for the effort he puts forth.
Now, Mr. Speaker, so far as I am concerned, if I were to debate this question for a month I could only say what I have already said, that we have-I do not use the word sympathy, because to me that is more or less an insult-we have every feeling that the returned soldier should be used like a man. You cannot use him better than to treat him as you would use your fellow-man, no matter who he may be, and I believe that the people of this country are willing, aye, ready to use the returned soldier just as well as it is possible for them to use him and to do him every justice; but I do not believe that the mass of our people are willing to do more than justice,-are willing to continue paying gratuities after men refuse the opportunity of becoming re-established in civil life. If our returned men will accept that opportunity, then every one in this country I believe is willing to do everything he possibly can for those men. What more can they ask? Did they not go overseas for the sake of patriotism, to serve their country? It is an insult to the returned soldier-at least to many of them that I know, to say that they went for the sake of getting compensation after they came home. No country could possibly pay such compensation in the measure of the sacrifices made; this country cannot, and we cannot afford to keep men who refuse to work when the opportunity is presented to them. If they are sound in body, give them the opportunity to earn a living. But if they will not work, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to continue to pay out money? I think not. Many people have said that this will not be the end of this matter. I doubt if it will.. But it will be the end if we are sensible members of Parliament. That is what I think, anyway.
I have only to say once more, Mr. Speaker, that if ever a committee worked absolutely honestly on the job that they were set to do, it was the committee whose report is before the House. And let me repeat again, that if the House were to sit here as long as the committee sat and discussed this question, I do not believe you could come to any other conclusion than we came to,-that the country cannot afford to pay further gratuities, and that it is not in the interests of the soldier that it should.
At six o'clock the House took recess
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. OBSERVANCE OF ARMISTICE DAY. MESSAGE FROM HIS MAJESTY THE KING.


George Green Foster: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with the debate I should like to read a telegram from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor General, as follows:
London, November 6, 1919.
Urgent.
I am commanded by His Majesty the King to send you for immediate publication the following message, which is addressed to all the peoples of the Empire.
" To all my people:
" Tuesday next, November 11th, is the first anniversary of the armistice which stayed the world-wide carnage of the four preceding years, and marked the victory of right and freedom. I believe that my people in every part of the Empire fervently wish to perpetuate the memory of that great deliverance and of those who laid down their lives to achieve it.
"To afford an opportunity for the universal expression of this feeling it is my desire and hope that at the hour when the armistice came into force, the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, there may be for the brief space of two minutes a complete suspension of all our normal activities. During that time, except in the rare cases where this might be impracticable, all work, all sound and all locomotion should cease, so that in perfect stillness the thoughts of every one may be concentrated on reverent remembrance of the glorious dead.
"No elaborate organization appears to be necessary. At a given signal, which can easily be arranged to suit the circumstances of each locality, I believe that we shall all gladly interrupt our business and pleasure whatever it may be and unite in this simple service of silence and remembrance."


&quot;GEORGE R.I.&quot;
[Stage Direction]
This will be published in the Press here tomorrow morning. Arrangements are being made for the general observance of the two minutes' silence at eleven o'clock next Tuesday. Trains will be stopped on the railways, traffic on the streets, ships as far as possible at sea, and every effort will be made to get work suspended everywhere in schools, shops, mines, and factories and to ensure complete silence.
His Majesty hopes that your ministers may be willing to arrange a similar observance.
It is of course, impracticable owing to distance that the ceremony should synchronize throughout the Empire. It is therefore suggested that eleven a.m. local time should be adopted everywhere.
Similar message being sent to India' and lo every Dominion and Colony in the Empire.
Milner.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Calder for concurrence
[Stage Direction]
in the fourth and final 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 of Mr. Andrews thereto.
Robert James Manion: of dollars to purchase the Grand Trunk railway. The Government is taking over the bonds and paying the interest, but it is not putting up hundreds of millions of dollars. Those are instances of false statements made-thoughtlessly, I know, because I do not mean to bring personalities into this debate-and such statements, being spread throughout this country, help to increase the unrest caused by misunderstanding amongst the soldiers.
A third reason for unrest amongst the soldiers is to be found in the inequalities of sacrifice which have taken place in this war. There is a feeling, and a just one, that while some men were giving their lives or limbs at the front, others were remaining at home and making vast sums of money. For example, a man with one leg off is going down the street on his crutches, and he sees whirling by him some chap who, he knows, did not serve at the front and who, he knows, cleaned up a great deal of money through some industry with which he was connected during the war. The man with the leg off natmaly feels that there is something wrong in the system that permits such an inequality of sacrifice. It is simply an exaggeration of the condition that has existed as long as we can read hack in history. The same condition exists when some old workman, who has worked earnestly and soberly and hard and yet who has through some misfortune, but not through his fault, reached the stage where he is depending upon charity for a living, sees, perhaps living in the same block with him, some man who did not work so earnestly or soberly or hard, who has, through some good stroke of fortune, fallen into the lap of luxury. I believe that both those conditions are wrong; that the world has changed a great deal in this war; and I do not believe that the people either of Canada or of any other country in the world are going to be satisfied so long as those inequalities exist. Apparently the same condition exists in England as exists here. I have noticed very recently in the press reporting news from England that propositions are being put forward there toy -prominent statesmen that fortunes, which have been made directly or indirectly through the war should be very heavily taxed or altogether confiscated. There are *many objections offered to such a proposition as that. I am not at alf sure that it will be adopted in England; tout if it should be adopted there, I have no doubt that most of the people of this country will not he satisfied with less in this country.

The Government must supplement the recommendations of this 'Committee. This winter at least, no man who has served at the front, nor his dependents, must need the necessaries of life. This Government must, as far as it is able, supply employment for the men who have served at the front. I know there is a very strong cry in this country to retrench, and with that cry I agree as long as it applies to unnecessary works, tout there is certain necessary work which must be done if this country is to remain in a settled and contented condition. The hon. member for Oxford North (Mr. Nesbitt) stated that there was plenty of work for every man in Ontario at least, and I have no doubt that generally speaking he is correct; but we all know that there are times when there may toe plenty of work for men in Toronto and none in Vancouver, or plenty of work in Port Arthur or Fort William and none ip Montreal, and vice versa. Therefore, if there is unemployment in some of those centres, it is better for the Grovernment to consider doing necessary work that may help to lessen the unemployment than to pay out unemployment insurance; but the unemployment insurance must be given when the work cannot be supplied.
I submit, Mr. Speaker-and this is only my personal opinion-that what the men really desire is employment; they do not desire doles or charity, but work, in order 'that they may once more be established in the self-respecting and self-reliant position which they occupied before the w-ar. I have conversed with dozens of returned men in my own home city-and I may say that some four thousand men went from my district to the front-and most of them, with very few exceptions, express a strong desire for employment and seem anxious to be given an opportunity to get back to a pre-war basis. My returned men are moderate and fair. I have heard very few complaints in any shape or form from the returned boys in my part of the country, and. generally speaking T believe that they are typical of the soldiers throughout the country except in places where agitation is created by some extremist. Mr. Speaker, I have faith in the heroes who went to the front, and I do not believe that they have any intention of holding a pistol to the head of this or any other government and demanding impossible financial achievements. But they do demand justice, a fair opportunity, and employment.
Now, before I offer any suggestions to the House, I desire to deal for a few ino-

merits with the amendment which has been submitted. If I construe that amendment correctly, and I think I do, it proposes that this report be referred back to the committee for further consideration, with a recommendation. I will read just that portion of the amendment that is pertinent to my argument:
-with instructions that they have power to amend same by striking' therefrom certain clauses and substituting therefor the principles of the plan of re-estahlishment as set out in appendix 1 in the said report.
Now, the plan suggested is one which the committee say represents an expenditure of $400,000,000, although those who put it forward claim that it means an expenditure of only $200,000,000. But suppose we make a compromise and say $300,000,000. This Government has distinctly stated that it cannot see its way clear to offer any general gratuities in addition to those they have offered up to the present time. The hon.
[DOT] member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) today criticised the minister (Mr. J. A. Cal-det) rather severely I thought for what he regarded as a threat to resign. I do not think that the criticism was entirely just. This Government has thoroughly looked into the question before us, and the committee have given equal consideration to it, and both have decided that at the present time it is impossible to raise so vast a sum of money as $300,000,000 or $400,000,000. The minister and his colleagues have discussed the question minutely, and have come to the conclusion that it is so utterly impossible that so far as they are^ concerned they cannot attempt to perform the feat of raising the money. The minister has therefore been very frank and has intimated that if the Government were called upon to undertake the task they could not do so. That is an honourable position for them to take, and while I do not think there was much justification for such a threat to resign as was referred to by the hon. gentleman-I was in the House on the night in question and I must confess that I did not like it at the time-in this case it must be obvious that a very large and important question is involved. The question in the former instance referred to was comparatively a trifling one, but this, I repeat, is a grave and highly important matter, and I think that the minister's position is properly taken, for I have no doubt that the Government feels it could not possibly attempt to carry out the suggestion put forward in the amendment. The amendment asks that the report be referred back to the committee.
If that- is done, one of two things must happen. Either the committee must reject the proposal contained in the amendment and come back to the House with the same report as they have already submitted, which would appear to be their logical attitude, or they must recommend that the amendment be adopted and this '$300,000,000 or $400,000,000 raised and expended by the Government in gratuities. Very well. Suppose we take the optimistic alternative from the soldiers' standpoint, that of raising the money. Then the Government, to live up to its word, would simply have to go to the country. Then an election would be called. It could not be held before January, and no one knows what might happen in that election.
Some hoii. MEMBERS: We do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends opposite laugh, but I am quite sure that they have no more idea than I have as to what would happen, and I have none. Suppose that an election were called. The soldiers might vote to get candidates elected who would favour the giving of the gratuity. There are only two prominent public men whom I have known recently to take the stand in favour of this gratuity on the eve of an election, namely, Sir William Hearst and Mr. Hartley Dewart, and I have not heard that the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario has called on either of them to form a government. However, suppose a parliament were elected in January, which would be as soon as the election could be held, at least in my opinion, and suppose the majority of the members returned supported the gratuity proposition. Out of this group some one would be called to form a government, and he would proceed to call Parliament together. That session would probably be called a month still later. By the way, I observe that Mr. Drury, the provincial premier, was elected three -weeks ago, and has not as yet formed his Cabinet. But, as I was saying, suppose the parliament, in the hypothetical case I am putting before the House, were called a month after the election, the session would begin in March. Suppose, further, that the first thing it dealt with, almost before the Budget, were the question of gratuities. Very well, that would be in March, and the very soonest they could put a loan on would be at least in two months' time, for it would take that time to advertise it. That brings us to May, and we are not at all sure that within six months of one loan you could raise $300,000,000-most of which, by the way, I un-

derstand, is already owing to the banks within six months, I say, I doubt very much if we could raise another $300,000,000, or $400,000,000, as a soldier loan. But I am looking at the optimistic side of the question, and am supposing that we could raise the amount. We could not get the money before May, or six months from to-day. In the meantime what is to happen to this report of the soldiers' committee? Of course, it goes by the board, and the hardship cases and unemployment problem and disabled cases for the rest of this winter would_ receive no attention.
I do not see that we could both reject the report and adopt it, and if we rejected it, it would mean an election. .That is what it amounts to in plain English, although I wish it understood that this is entirely the personal opinion of an ordinary member. I have not the ear of the Government, and never have had. However, in the meantime various cases of hardship would go without redress and I do not therefore see that the amendment could possibly do anything but harm to the soldier boys whom this report deals with. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the amendment.
Now, Sir, having cleared the air so far as I am concerned in regard to that amendment, I wish to say that I have no desire to attempt to prophesy what might happen in a couple of years from now in regard to a gratuity for the soldier. 1 do not know what may be in the minds of the people of the country after they have cleaned up the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, the Soldiers' Vocational Training, Land Settlement and a number of other large expenditures which total, including the public works, etc., which are being carried on this year and part of next something like $800,000,000 in conservative figures according to this report. As a matter of fact, the total is $900,000,000, but they subtract $100,000,000 in order to be conservative. As I say, after this $800,000,000 is disposed of I do not know what the country may consider advisable to do in justice to the boys who served in Europe, and I will not attempt to look into the future. If I have to choose between the amendment and this report, I choose the report.	_
I am going to sum up what I wish to say and the suggestions that I have to make. I consider that this report, as far as it goes, is an excellent report but I say that with the expectation that the Government will, in dealing with this question, supplement the report in many differ-
ent ways. For example, the Government must give employment to those who require it. In the second place, the Government must relieve all cases of hardship that are found to exist in this country and it must 'perhaps begin to work out some system of loans in extension of the system of loans that is mentioned in this report. They have suggested loans only to the disabled.
I personally cannot see why it should be absolutely impossible to work out a system of loans which would be extended to the needy as well as to the disabled. My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cooper) makes the statement that they would all be needy. I do not admit that. I think there would probably be 200,000, or half of the soldiers who came back from the front, who would be looked upon- as not demanding a loan made to men who absolutely needed it. My hon. friend from Vancouver, my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Griesbach) and I are all returned soldiers and we would be amongst those who would not under any circumstances touch a loan of that kind. I submit that at least half of the men who have returned from the front, who would have decent employment, who would be earning a good livelihood, would under no circumstances be able to demand that loan on the ground of need. I am merely offering this as a suggestion. I may be wrong but still it is something that I should like to have the Government consider. If 200,000 men asked for a loan of $500 each, these being needy cases, it would only amount to $100,000,000 and it is not impossible to raise that $100,000,000 in this country.
I do not admit with the committee that $50,000,000 represents the limit of the possibilities in the matter of raising money in this country. My hon/ friend (Mr. Hugh Clark) says that the committee does not say that. The committee implies that the limit is $50,000,000, or at all events, I have inferred that from the fact that it mentions that amount. I may be wrong about that, however, and I will withdraw that suggestion. I say that $50,000,000 is not the limit of the amount that Canada can raise, and I have assumed in my remarks that perhaps Canada can raise $100,000,000 for needy cases. There may not be as many needy cases but I have estimated that half the number of returned men would come within that category. It may be that my estimate is too high. I would say that it should be confined to cases of real need.
The third proposition which I have to make is in regard to life insurance. The


1D19
[Stage Direction]
committee has gone into the question of life insurance and it has recommended that the matter should be further inquired into. I agree with that. I think the Government has a duty to perform and that is to work out some scheme to provide for men who have served and who cannot get insurance in the regular way from the legitimate insurance companies.
The fourth question that I would call to the attention of the House is one which the committee has not dealt with, but one which has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction, that is the gratuity as we have it already. The gratuity is paid on a yearly basis. If a man had served a year he got so much; if a man had served a year, eleven months and twenty-five days he got paid for a year; whereas another man who had served ten days more, or 2 years and five days, got a two years' gratuity. That was not fairly worked out. Although it was designed to be fair, it worked out a hardship in a large number of cases. The Government might very well look into this question and try to work out some system whereby these gratuities will be paid on a more equitable basis, perhaps on a daily, monthly, or quarterly basis. I do not think it is fair that a man who has served one year eleven months and twenty-five days should only get a year's gratuity, while a man who has served ten days more should get a two years' gratuity. That is an injustice that has caused a certain amount of dissatisfaction, and it is the duty of the Government to deal with it.
There is another question which was not brought before the committee, and that is the question of families and old parents losing an only son and yet having some means of support. Unless the son was the only means of support these old parents could receive no consideration. There are certain rules under which they would get a pension. But there are certain oases where the son was a prospective supporter of the family and he would have been of material assistance to the poor old parents who lost him. This is a case also which should be given some consideration with a view to working out some scheme which would permit of assistance being given to these old parents.
Finally, in many cases, the pensions have been inadequate. I believe that the rate of pensions should be increased: in a large number of cases, as was suggested by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) this afternoon.
These are suggestions merely of my own and I would like, when the minister is making his reply to all of us, if he would pledge the Government to give suggestions of this nature kindly consideration.
I do not wish any member of the committee to regard anything that I have said as a criticism of the committee because I certainly have no intention of doing anything but praising them. They have had, as I said at first, a thankless and tiresome task and they have done their work very well. The report is good in so far as it goes. My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) said this morning it had imperfections. I agree that it has imperfections. I believe that it is the duty of the Government to supplement the work of the committee and to correct these imperfections wherever necessary, and especially if there are cases of hardship to returned men or their dependents, even if much more than $50,000,000 is needed.
James Alexander Calder: Mr. Speaker, I think
that at this stage I should say a word on the amendment, reserving my right to close the debate on the main motion later on. It seems to me that the wish of the various organizations that came before our committee is being realized; this problem is being threshed out on the floor of Parliament just as they desired. We have had a fairly lively debate so far and a very interesting one. I presume that the debate will continue for some length of time and that probably further light will be shed on the situation.
I rose to make clear to the House the effect of this amendment. During the recess a number of members spoke to me who apparently did not understand what its object was or what the result would be if the amendment- were adopted. In order to clear up the situation, in order that every member of the House may clearly understand the purpose of the motion, I desire for a short time to have the attention of the House.
Let me go back and refer to the motion itself. The motion is to the effect that the report of the committee, tabled in the House on a certain day, be received and that the expenditures, which would be required for carrying out the recommendations made in this report, be commended to the consideration of the Government. The main motion does not ask the House to approve of the recommendations that are contained in the report. The motion is that the report be received and that if there are further expenditures in connection with these recommendations that are made, these expenditures should be taken into considera-



tion by the Government with a view to adopting them and making whatever provision is necessary in order that they majr be put into effect.
Since then, the Supplementary Estimates have been brought down. The Government has taken these recommendations into consideration and in order to carry them out a sum of $40,000,000 appears in the Estimates. Now, the amendment is to this effect:
That all the words after the word " therein " toe struck out. That the report tabled be received, and that the recommendations therein

Everything else disappearing.
-be struck out, and the following substituted therefor.
The main motion if thus amended will read in this way:
That the recommendations therein are not sufficient for the purpose of adequately reestablishing all former members of the forces in Canada in a comprehensive and equitable manner, and that the said report be returned to the said committee with instructions that they have power to amend the same by striking therefrom the recommendations contained under sections (d)-
and so on. Those recommendations refer to the series of suggestions covering vocational training, the grants to students, the loans for housing, and provisions for young medical practitioners, whose practice had ' been interfered with by enlisting-it is proposed by the amendment that that whole series of recommendations be struck from the report. Also, that the recommendations regarding pensions, and life insurance, and also the recommendations in reference to the taking care of the unemployment situation this winter, be struck from the report and that there be substituted instead this:
Substituting therefor-
That is, in place of all these recommendations made by the committee-
-the principles of the plan of re-establishment as set out in appendix 1.
That refers to the plan submitted to the committee by the Great War Veterans' Association. In other words, the suggestion under the amendment is that this report be sent back to the special committee with instructions that it have power to include in these recommendations the plan submitted to the committee by the Great War Veterans' Association for re-establishment; and for this purpose, it is recommended that instead of the expenditure contained in section (e) thereof-that is the section of our report which sums up what we 
thought it would take to carry out our	suggestion-instead	of that
$50,000,000 which we provide, we should insert whatever estimate we thought would be suitable to carry out the suggestions of the Great War Veterans' Association committee that appeared before us. In other words, what is asked by the member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews) is that the committee simply take the report back and embody in it the plans submitted to us by the Great War Veterans' Association. What does it mean?
It means that if the House commits itself to the principle of a further general distribution of cash grants or gratuities to all returned men, and if we carry out the suggestion as it came to us from the Great War Veterans' Association, we are committed to an expenditure in the neighbourhood of $400,000,000, not $200,000,000. As I explained in the statement which I made to the House the other day, the two deductions taken from the estimate made by the Great War Veterans' Association will not stand close scrutiny. Their suggested deduction of 25 per cent, because the money is to be applied on land settlement or because bonds are to be given to the soldiers, will not stand scrutiny at all. You can therefore eliminate that 25 per cent, leaving at least $300,000,000 to be provided. The other 25 per cent deduction they proposed was because certain of the men would not claim the gratuity-certain- men, they said, would not claim the gratuity, or would not be entitled to it, because they could not establish need. Well, as I said the other day, I am afraid there would not be very much opportunity to make a large reduction there, when you give " need " the definition that was given to us in the com-'mittee. So I think the conclusion we came to was the correct one. That is, if the plan as submitted to us by the Great War Veterans' Association is carried out, it would involve the expenditure of approximately $400,000,000. I do not know whether the member for Centre Winnipeg suggests that the committee should take into consideration the advisability of adopting the principles -of that plan, or reduce the amount; that is, instead of paying a man who went to France, for example, $2,000, pay him $1,000, and thereby cut the estimate in two. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has that in mind or not. The amendment simply proposes that the committee be instructed to include [DOT] in the estimate of the cost a suitable amount to carry out the plan suggested.

Now, the proposition before the House is a comparatively simple one. It is simply a question as to whether or not the majority of the members of this House consider, in view of the circumstances that have been urged to-day and yesterday, that provision should be made whereby a further general distribution of cash-not loans, but cash in the way of grants or gratuities-should be made to all ex-members of the forces for re-establishment purposes. Is it the desire of the majority in this House that the committee should be instructed to bring down a recommendation of that character? That is exactly what the amendment means, and when the division takes place, that is the question upon which the vote will be cast.
I must say a word or two in reference to some remarks that have been made by several hon. gentlemen, namely, the member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews), the member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), and the member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham). These hon. gentlemen said in effect that the Government should not throw out suggestions that it has decided upon a policy or come to a decision on a certain phase of this question. I think the member for Peterborough said we should not be " huffy." Well, it is not a question of (being huffy. I am sure every member of the House realizes tfiat the form of government under which we are working is a well-established one.
When a large problem like this comes up there are naturally questions of policy involved, and the Government as a government collectively must come to a decision on those questions of policy, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is only fair, it is only right, and it is only proper that the Government should take the earliest opportunity to acquaint the members of the House with its decisions on those questions of policy. We should state to the House very distinctly where we stand on a matter of that kind. If we were discussing the tariff there would be no. question about it at all, the Government as a government would have to know where it stood on the issue; if we were discussing a general question of railway policy the same would be true; if we were discussing the question as to whether or not we should launch out into a shipbuilding programme, the Government as a government would have to come to a decision as to the policy involved, and it must stand or fall by that decision. That always has been and will be our form of government unless our constitution changes. Now, in reference to 1164
this matter, such a stand by the Government does not bind hon. members. Every hon. member is free to do as he pleases; he is responsible for his own vote, and he can vote as he likes. But at the same time if the Government takes a certain position on any large question of policy of this kind, and the majority in the House do.es not sustain the Government, then but one thing follows-some other government must carry on. But if that should happen, that is your will.


John Hampden Burnham: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is this a report of the Government or of the committee?


James Alexander Calder: It is a report of the committee; but, as I said in my opening remarks, in so far as the main finding of the committee is concerned, the Government agrees with that finding. That position of the Government is not new. It is six or eight months ago since the Prime Minister himself announced to the House what was the policy of the Government. Early in this session the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) stood in his place and clearly intimated the decision the Government had come to on that question of policy. The Government did not require the investigation by this special committee in order to ascertain the financial position of the country; it knew that position. There is just a possibility that during the course of our discussions and the digging out of certain facts that the Government as a result has probably just a little clearer knowledge-at least, some members of the Government have, as to what the financial position is now than we had, say, a few weeks ago. But if you will take the letter of Sir Robert Borden written some months ago, Mr. Speaker, you will see that he stated very clearly and very definitely that the Government had the facts and the knowledge upon which it oame to the conclusion he then announced, and I repeat that it was not necessary to have this special committee in order to ascertain those facts.
At this stage I do not feel like entering into a general discussion of the whole situation, because I may have to do that later on, but I would just like to point out this; that in all the discussion we have had- and I followed it very closely-after all, when we come to boil it down a great deal of it consists of generalities. My good friend from York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) rather blamed the committee because it had not more of the human element, so

to speak, in its report. Well, we considered that phase, and we decided that so far as dealing in heroics was concerned, merely talking about "the great sacrifices" and "the efforts of our gallant men" and all that sort of thing, we would eliminate it from our report. Some one has said that the men themselves are sick and tired ot such statements being made time and again about their gallant deeds, of how they fought for their country and sacrificed themselves, what they did for us that we might be free, and so forth. Nothing would be gained by loading up our report along these lines. Every member of the committee and every member of this House appreciates the situation. They know what our army has done, they know how our men suffered, they know what they accomplished for Canada in the way of preserving our liberties. No, we did not deem it advisable to frame our report . along those lines. We had, shall I say, a business proposition before us, although we did not tackle it from that standpoint, and while we did not overlook the other element of the problem, yet we endeavoured as far as we could to approach it in the very broadest possible way and with every sympathy as well.
As I say, during our discussion this afternoon we have not really got very much farther as to the real issue. One member gets up and suggests: Well, surely we can raise $100,000,000. Another says: Well, surely we can raise $150,000,000, while another member suggests $200,000,000, and still another $300,000,000, vising with one another as to the amount we should or could raise. But hon. members who have spoken along those lines are overfooking two prime facts upon which we have had very little light so far, and if this discussion is to continue I think we should get some light on them.
Now, let me repeat. I showed yesterday, and the figures as yet have not been seriously attacked, that within twelve months or thereabouts we will have to raise from $700,000,000 to $850,000,000 for commitments already made. Now the suggestion is proffered that on top of that we should borrow, say, $300,000,000 more, which means that we must go to the people of this country within twelve months and borrow $1,000,000,000. As the member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) said this afternoon: For goodness' sake, let us talk common sense; let us look the facts square in the face and see where we are. Can we go and obtain from the people of this country within the next twelve months a loan of $1,000,000,000? That is the question.

So far as I am personally concerned, nothing would please me more than to be able to accomplish that, and I daresay the view I hold is the view of every hon. member. It is not a question of endeavouring to pay the men for their service, it is a question of doing what we can to assist them in their re-establishment, and I know ' scores of cases where returned men do need assistance. But that is not the question. The question is: What can we do at the present time under the circumstances now existing? As I said yesterday, this is both a war year and a re-establishment year; we have both expenditures on us at the same time. Can we go out to our people and get $1,000,000,000, as we shall have to do if we are going to provide $300,000,000 for re-establishment this year? So far as the committee is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it got the very best evidence it could, and it came to the conclusion that that cannot he done. If you go out to-day with your special loan for soldiers' assistance and get $200,000,000, where would you be three or four months hence in so far as other moneys are concerned that must 'be provided for commitments already made and for other expenditure necessary in order to carry on, our national affairs?
If we drop our Victory Loan to-day and go again to the people for say another $300,000,000 for re-establishment-yes, we will get it; it could he got. But you would have to go right afterwards for another $300,000,000, and for another $300,000,000 on top of that. Are the financial resources of the country such at the present time that you are silre you could get that money? That is the question. I say again that the committee has come to the conclusion that it cannot be done; that we cannot raise that amount of money in the country in that short space of time. But that is only one side of the question. I repeat with all the. emphasis that I can that if this money is raised you have to pay the interest on it every year until the principal is paid off. If you raise $300,000,000 for this purpose, you will have to pay interest at five and one-half per cent-that is what we are paying now, and I assume that that will be the rate for a number of years-and that annual interest will amount to $17,500,000. Well now, I ask the House in all seriousness if on top of the annual load that we are carrying now, a load of taxation amounting to $270,000,000 a year; on top of the interest that must be paid on the $700,000,000 to which the country is now committed, amounting to $38,000,000-I ask

if we can add to these a further amount of some $17,500,000? There is the problem.
During all the discussion that has taken place here to-day and last night, what concrete suggestion has been made as to the means of raising that money?
An hon. MEMBEE: None.


James Alexander Calder: It is * all very well
to say: Yes, we can go out and get $200,000,000 and use it for the purpose of this gratuity. But I ask again, where is the annual amount to come from with which to pay the interest on that sum, to say nothing of all our other commitments? Well, we had a suggestion from the member for Qu'Appelle (Mr..L. Thomson) this afternoon. He said: Out in the West our farmers are prepared to pay; if you will show them the reasonableness of it they will pay. Let me give you one little experience. I was a member of a Provincial Government out West. In 1907 or 1908 we put a tax on land of one cent an acre or $1.60 a quarter section. We had more difficulty in being elected in the election that followed than we had had at any time in our whole history. One whole campaign was taken up in explaining that tax of one cent an acre.


Mr. MAHAEG:: Have you since had any trouble in collecting that tax? It is still in force.


James Alexander Calder: Well, it took a mighty lot of explaining, and it made a very dangerous election. The hon. member (Mr. Maharg) was there; he knows what the campaign was. He went through it and I venture to say that he supported our tax. But he knows the difficulty that we had; he knows what an issue it was in our province. It was a just tax; if I am not mistaken it is there still.


John Archibald Maharg: Yes.


James Alexander Calder: I ask again in all
seriousness: What have we had during all our discussions so far in the way of concrete suggestion as to the means to he adopted for the raising of these moneys? Nothing.
I know that some hon. members are simply tumbling over each other in their desire to see our customs taxation cut down, and there are sections of the country as well which hold that view. We are receiving at the present time somewhere in the neighbourhood of $145,000,000 through customs taxation. That is based upon the present high values of imports; what is going to happen as these values
dwindle? Our customs revenue will not stay at $145,000,000; it will come down to $135,000,000, $130,000,000 or $125,000,000, as the values of the commodities upon which the taxes are levied come down. Then, if there is some tariff reduction, instead of a revenue of $145,000,000 from customs we may get somewhere in the neighbourhood of $120,000,000, $115,000,000 or $110,000,000, and the difference between what we are getting now and what we shall get then must be made up in some way. Where is the money to come from?
Our report deals with the question of the income tax; you can read it for yourself. We have as high an income tax now as they have in the United States. It is possible that by more effective administration, by watching the matter more closely and getting everybody to pay that we can-it is going to take a little time; you cannot impose an ificome tax in a country like-Canada and get your maximum results in the first year or two-we may increase somewhat the revenue from that source. But as: I understand it, we are getting somewhere-in the neighbourhood of $30,000,000 a year from income tax. If we increase the income taxation by fifty per cent, how much more	do we get-only
$15,000,000; and if we increase our income tax considerably beyond what the income tax is in the United States-well, members of the House realize what the possible effect may be.
Take our business profits tax; are we going to increase that tax? I ask hon. members: Is that your solution of the problem? Is that the way you will get the revenue to meet this huge expenditure? In Great Britain they have chopped off their business profits tax very considerably; I believe they have brought it down to forty or fifty per cent of what it was before, -and there are possibilities of further reduction. The same is likely true of the United States. Can we put a still heavier tax on all classes of the business of the country? Can we maintain a tax that is out of proportion to the similar tax imposed in Great Britain or the United States? I doubt it very much; we shall not be able to get a revenue in that way.
Well, where are we going to get this revenue? Will somebody tell me? Will somebody tell our committee? If you are going to ask us to reconsider our report and' to amend it so as to provide for the expenditure of an additional two, three, or four hundred millions of dollars, well then, some one has to get up in this House and convince members of that committee that there

is a possibility of that revenue being in sight in order to meet the increased amounts that must be raised annually. Isn't that fair? Isn't it reasonable?
I am merely saying this in order to try to direct this debate into a proper channel. Ii our calculations are wrong; if our figures are wrong, for goodness sake show us in what respect they are wrong. If there is not likely to be an expenditure of $700,000,000 or $800,000,000 within the next twelve months show us where we are wrong. We spent days and days getting those figures, collecting them, examining them. They are there iu the report; they speak lor themselves; no serious attack has been made upon them.
Take, for instance, the expenditure on ordinary current account. The figures are there; they speak for themselves; they are very clear and very definite. Our annual current expenditure has gone up from $127,000,000, in 1914, to $270,000,000 this year, without taking into consideration anything for the future, even the interest on the present Victory Loan.
You cannot reduce that sum materially. There is an additional burden there of $90,000,000 for interest on the national debt. You cannot reduce that; it is there; it is fixed; it must be paid. There is another $25,000,000 in that for pensions which you cannot eliminate, and another $30,000,000 to carry on the work of civil re-establishment which will have to be carried on for the next two years at an annual expenditure of at least $25,000,000. You cannot get rid of those expenditures. Taking those factors into consideration, the balance of the money available for carrying on the ordinary purposes of this country is less than it was in 1914, so where is your opportunity for reduction? If you put on top of that $270,000,000 which apparently must be raised, some $35,000,000 or $38,000,000 for interest charges on the $700,000,000 that we must raise to carry out the commitments of the country at the present tiihe; and another $5,000,000 for additional pensions, the number of which is increasing every day; and then on top of that again the interest on this money about which we are speaking this afternoon as necessary to raise for reestablishment;-I want some hon. member to show me where those taxes are going to come from, how they are going to be levied. It is all very well to talk pleasantly, to be agreeable, to speak as hon. members have spoken this afternoon; but that money must be raised, and this Parliament before it commits itself to policies or principles of this kind, must be satisfied that it has the
rMr. Cal der. ]
means in sight of raising the money. I thought it advisable at this, stage merely to make some remarks to indicate the purport of the amendment itself and to place the proposition once more before the House.


Richard Clive Cooper: Mr. Speaker, in discussing this report, I shall be very brief. I want to make just one reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Currie). In an article in the Toronto Star of November 3, he is reported as having said that members of the committee had been approached by the whips to find out their feelings on the question of gratuities. I was a member of that committee, and I consider that the honour of every member of that committee was impugned. As regards myself, the statement is absolutely false.
The work of the committee was a work full of difficulties. Everywhere we turned we found that we were up against a discrimination or an inequality; and to evolve some scheme of gratuities or re-establishment that would be equitable was beyond the' power of our committee. The committee worked earnestly and, I think, considered every point throughly. In several cases, they reviewed the matter and then reviewed it again. That is all I have to say as to the work of the committee.
I want to deal for a moment or two with three or four of the specific suggestions and recommendations. Suggestion 2 deals with the rate of pay and allowances of officers, warrant officers and . non-commissioned officers receiving treatment in hospitals under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and the committee recommended that pay and allowances be equal for all ranks. It was not in the mind of any one of the members of the committee at that time that a grave injustice would be done to officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers who had been transferred to these hospitals under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, as suffering from some war disability, I think that this is a matter that can and should be remedied. The second matter I wish to take up is suggestion 15. The committee makes a recommendation that " sterling funds " which were for pay and allowances to the members of the forces and which were brought back from overseas by them, should be exchanged at the standard rate of I4.86S. The recommendation does not, however, cover the case of men who exchanged their sterling into dollars .and

cents in the past. I wish to recommend very strongly that this matter should be considered .and that the recommendation, therefore, be made retroactive. My next point deals with suggestion 20 which covers vocational training, education, etc. This is a subject that appeals to me more strongly than any other. As regards vocational training, the suggestion was brought before the committee that all lads up to the age of twenty-one, whether or not they had received a war disability, should be eligible for a training in some one of recognized trades It was, however, felt-and I regret this extremely-that to allow this privilege to any class would be too much of a discrimination. That was the one reason given which really mattered. A second reason given was that the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment could not enlarge their facilities sufficiently to take care of the prospective applicants. Like many other things that the Canadian corps was up against, that could be got over. The question, however, of discrimination is one that, to my mind cannot be got over, and I regret that extremely, because I firmly believe that every one of these lads who can be trained in a useful occupation is going to return a value ifor that training a hundredfold in the years to come. He would be of immense value to the country; he would be of the same value to the country as the man who goeS*on the farm and produces the products of the soil. I am, however, afraid that unless a very overwhelming mass of opinion received from all soldiers' organizations throughout the country can be sent to the Government approving the training of these lads, we cannot get over the discrimination that would be shown if the Government approved the scheme now, and even then I do not know if it can be got over. The same argument, I regret to say, applies to university students.
Every man knows that the scientist who is required to-day is not available from among our own people, and we have to turn to other countries to get him. According to the evidence submitted to tne committee there are, I believe, some 7,500 returned university students, and of that number I understand that about 2,000 are unable to put themselves through university. That is a very grave loss to Canada. But the question of discrimination again arises, and unless it can be overcome by the method I, have before suggested I am afraid the recommendation must stand.
No. 21 deals with life insurance. This question was thoroughly discussed by the
committee and was investigated from every angle which any member of the committee could bring out. None of us were experts or actuaries and the recommendation made by the committee is, in my opinion, the only one that could have been made. But I would ask that when the report is brought down by the experts and adopted as a plan by this Government or any other Government that may succeed it, its provisions be made retroactive to the date of the report of the committee to the House.
To turn briefly to the question of gratuities. There was no scheme of gratuities that was absolutely free of inequality; no scheme that was even reasonably free of inequality. There was therefore no scheme that did not discriminate against one or another. In my opinion therefore these gratuity schemes were ruled out from that point alone. Furthermore, as a member who attended every meeting of the committee except one, during the taking of the evidence, I firmly believe that the financial condition of Canada and the number of people in our country who are able to subscribe to a loan makes it impossible to raise at short notice any such sum a.s would be required to meet the proposals made.
Several speakers previous to myself have mentioned the question of equal sacrifice. It is a question that is burning in the hearts of the majority of returned men, and it is one that, do as the Government may, will bum there for years still. It may not show itself in any massed form, but undoubtedly it will be evidenced in individual cases. As many speakers have said, these men have come back and now see all others prosperous around them. No matter whether it was the worker who had worked in the shop alongside him, or the manufacturer of munitions, every one who stayed behind reaped the benefits of war prosperity. Is it unreasonable, therefore, it is asked, that our men should seek to equalize if possible the sacrifices. they made by asking those who enjoyed war benefits to share with them? The suggestion was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) that a soldier loan of $250,000,000 should be raised. If a soldier loan, why not a gift to the country from the men who have reaped prosperity due to the war? Well, I think that is out of the question; I do not believe we have so many altruists in the country. But if there is anything in the suggestion at all, why could not a loan be raised, free of interest and for a stated term, to allow the man who did not serve to prove his sincerity? If we have suOh a degree of unsel-


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: a government college. We buy a farm from a farmer and put somebody whom we have trained in an agricultural college in his place. We are trying to increase production. Never in the world will we increase production by any such scheme. The employment agencies work so well that the Government which establishes them does not think of choosing its employees from its own employment agencies. I will give an example of what I mean. At Quebec we have what is called the St. Malo workshops. They were to bring work to the city of Quebec, and we were to be prosperous; they did not do so. But the shops were opened recently and were supposed to employ returned soldiers. We sent returned soldiers down there to get work. What happened? The returned soldier would be told, "The job is filled, somebody else has got it." A man would say. "I am from the Government employment agency. You have got to give me employment." "Well," he would be told, "we cannot employ you, we have got no job for you." Next day somebody else who happened to have a pull with the boss of the shoip got the job. That is a good illustration of the operation and the working of a government employment agency. Throughout the whole of these works no more attention is paid to the government employment agency than an ordinary manufacturer or an ordinary employer pays, in fact much less. I had been under the impression that these employment agencies were instituted for the purpose of obtaining employment for the people.
There are several recommendations in this report, some good, some bad, but mostly of an indifferent character. Suggestion 2, to be found on page 49 recommends that the same rate of pay and allowances be granted to all those undergoing medical treatment. I am presuming that the members of the House are familiar -with what is proposed by this recommendation. Anyway, the object of it is this: that whether you be an officer or a private, a non-commissioned officer, a sergeant-major, a -lieutenant-colonel or a colonel, if you are undergoing treatment under the Department of Soldiers' -Civil Re-establishment, you are going to draw the same rate of pay as any other. That is equality, if you like.
I have received several telegrams 'in regard to this recommendation. One is from Ste. Agathe des Monts, the sanatorium under the oomtrol of the Government for T.B. patients. It reads:
Below copy of telegram:	Expect you protect our interests this .matter. Hon. J. A.

Calder, Chairman, Soldiers' Civil Re-estahlish-ment Commission.
Nursing sisters, officers, and N.C.O's undergoing treatment St. Agathe sanatoria strongly protest proposed equalization of pay outlined in recommendation of your commission. If this reduction is made Canada will be only a', lied country not treating invalided officers and N.C.O's in a manner commensurate with responsibility they shouldered during war and will place same in very embarrassing position owing to financial obligations already assumed.
Captain Lee.
I have two or three of these telegrams and some of my friends have also received them. Now what will be the effect of this recommendation? I will give you a concrete case. I know an elderly man, a man 45 or 50 years of age, who practised in Quebec as a physician. I -will not say what he was earning but he derived quite a comfortable income from his practice and supported his wife and children. He was away three years at the war, in command of a hospital, and did his duty. Now he is a hopelessly incapable case. That is to say, he is in a hospital, conducted by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and is drawing the rate of pay which he drew overseas-not as much as he was earning in civil life-and his wife is drawing a separation allowance. The effect' of this recommendation will be to reduce the pay of this man, who is utterly incapable of doing anything, to the rate of $1.10 a day and to practically turn his wife and children on the street. I was a private soldier myself, I joined the forces in that capacity, but I do not think this proposal is a fair one. It is rank Bolshevism, that is all it is. You are not doing what i-s in the interest of the private soldier. If you were, you would say, " We will increase the private soldier's pay and give him the same pay as a colonel." If that were done, I would say all right; but I do not see the sense in putting people on the street just to please the rabid element in the Great War Veterans' Association, in the ranks of the soldiers, or in this House. I say it is not reasonable, it is not fair, and it should not be done. I think that the recommendation is a shame and a disgrace to the House. If we are going to act on that idea give to the members of Parliament who served here during .the war $1.10 a day. They did not do as much as the soldier did, let them give back their indemnities. But to do what is suggested is not fair; it is not a square deal. I want to be treated as fairly as anybody else, but I absolutely refuse to vote or to concur in any such suggestion. Take another suggestion in the report, to be found at page

50. It is proposed that the period during which the after-care officers of the department should keep in personal contact with disabled men shall be extended. My objection to this recommendation, and I will state it very briefly, is that we want the returned man to be self-reliant. We believe in self-reliance in the returned man. Still, you are going to send some officer around, well paid by the country, to look after this chap about every two or three months, and he goes and asks the man, " What are you doing, Bill; after a better job?" Well, Bill has a job that does not suit him but he does not want everybody poking into his affairs; he does not want statistics to go to Ottawa with respect to his private affairs. Let him try to earn a little if he wants, but do not bother the man.
There is another recommendation somewhere in the report in regard to the Pensions Board, and I think it is very important; the Pensions Committee should look into this. There is a grave necessity in the country that we care for the widowed mother, for instance. The widowed mother gets $40 a month, and I think everybody will admit the fact that she has a difficulty in making both ends .meet. I am sure it is very difficult for her to do so in our part of the country, and I am quite sure it must be far more so in the West. I think that matter should have been looked into.
Now I come to another suggestion. It has been said several times in this House, and, I think, rightly, that when we are looking into the question of insurance we might at least have recommended the bringing down of some scheme for sub-standard insurance. I mean this: When a man has been so disabled as to be unable to obtain insurance from an ordinary company, at the ordinary risk, the Government should provide some means for helping him to do so, whether by Government insurance or by State help of some kind. The man who is suffering from tuberculosis or gas, should have some means put at his disposal by the Government, so that in case he dies from the disease he might leave something to his widow and children.
Now I come to the last suggestion, to be found on page 58 of the report. That suggestion is that we should vote a certain amount of money for looking after necessitous cases:
As to any unavoidable unemployment that may exist among' returned men during the winter months, your committee are of the opinion that the Federal Government should assume the
responsibility for making such provision as is deemed necessary to meet the emergency.
That may be right, the Government has employment bureaus for the purpose. But the committee goes further and recommends:
With this object in view your committee would recommend that steps be taken to provide assistance for all necessitous cases, that for the purpose of handling the problem' the necessary administrative machinery be organized without delay and that whatever appropriations are required to reasonably provide such financial assistance as may be necessary should be made available.
We are voting practically $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 all told for that. What are we voting it for? We are voting it to be handed over to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, or to some department of which we know nothing-that is to say, to a department of this Government we are giving this $40,000,000 or $50,000,000. Now, I have great difficulty myself in trusting this Government with forty or fifty cents; why should we trust them with $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 and give them a blank cheque to hand out to the needy? Why, we are all needy-I have four cents in. my pocket! If the Government wished to bring on an election shortly, any one who obtained a portion of this fund would be presumed to vote for the Government, which is only natural. Who are you going to give it to? .1 would suggest that before we vote this money that we should at least know who is going to handle it, who is going to have the boodle. I would like to know to whom in my constituency any of this money will be paid. I am going to -send the men that I figure are going to vote Tory-


James Arthurs: The hon. member has not any necessitous cases?


Charles Gavan Power: The Tories are all necessitous cases in my constituency. If we could really say that some good would result from this expenditure, that men might get a chance of obtaining some real Telief, I would say: Well, perhaps. But we do not like to trust this Government. They have gone so far in the hole already, let them hang themselves. But we shall be doing no good to the real needy soldier. The man who needs the money and who ' wants to do well will in many cases not appeal to charity, whether it be administered by the Government or by any other organization, and I am sure that any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who have had experience with our soldiers knows that. The result will be that almost every bum-in town who does not want to

work will be calling every day at the Necessitous Bureau, or whatever other name may be applied to it. You will see the same ones coming for help-I do not say a large number, but a certain nuinber will be right there, while the real man, the man who wants to get a job, and is willing to use an employment agency if itris any good, will not go to this Necessitous Bureau. I am absolutely opposed to voting this money until I know where it is going. We have - voted enough money already without knowing its destination.	.
We have been asked by the other side of the House to make a suggestion as to how to find the money that is needed. Before going further I must say that I am absolutely opposed to any further gratuity. I have already stated in this House that I am absolutely and positively opposed to any further gratuity, and I wish to 6tate my position as strongly as I can. But to please hon. gentlemen opposite-they are good friends of mine-I am going to make a suggestion. The S. C. R. is an absolutely useless institution, headed by an abso-. lutely useless minister. The S. C. R. should he abolished. Nobody wants it. You have a horde of S. C. R. employees living on the fat of the land; throw them out. The S. C. R. and other schemes have squandered millions of money. I may be wrong by a few odd! millions, hut we have been handling so many millions lately that it is hard to keep track of them-the S. C.
R,	has or is about to spend $414,000,000. We have some $300,000,000 that we can save anyway. Suppose you want to give the soldiers a further gratuity, abolish the
S.	C. R., except as to the Pensions Committee;-keep the Pensions Committee,- do away with land settlement, let the chap who wants to go on the land do so; do away with the employment agency, it is no good anyway; do away with vocational training, give any badly injured man the information where he can go to educate himself, steer him in the right direction. Then you will have found $300,000,000. Well, let the country take $200,000,000 of that money. I do not see any reason why we should not do that. We might save that money and make the men happy. I have already spoken longer than I intended to>-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Charles Gavan Power: I was not one of the members who signed the minority report of the committee; but I think they are quite right when they say that if we have no

money it is due to the reckless expenditure and the shameful waste indulged in by this Government. The Government has promised to the soldiers everything that it could possibly promise them. In the meantime it is wasting money that (it might save to give to them. First of all we sent our soldiers to the war; that is all right, I was in favour of it. We wasted a lot of lives at the front; that was all right, it was regrettable, but our men went over there to do battle. Then we have given credits all over, we have sacrificed ourselves for Britain and the Allies, in fact for every nation in sight. We wasted our money during the war and after the war. We bought munitions that were useless; we bought boots that were rotten; we bought horses that could not walk-we bought everything in the world on which we could spend money that, but for this waste, we might have had to use for the re-establishment of our soldiers. While our soldiers were fighting overseas we were spending money in Canada. We took $25,000,000 and threw it at Roumania; we will get it back some time-perhaps. We took another six or seven- million dollars and gave it to Joe Flavelle for the benefit of the Dagos; that is -all right, but still the soldiers are not getting it. Then we go to work and seem to have a great love for the British-until they interfere with us. In this case, though, I am afraid it is not the unhappy British investor, who, in any case, we are ostensibly going to help. But we *have given to the British investor many millions of dollars which we might still have had in the exchequer for the use of the returned soldier. In a word, we turn over everything we have got to every nation except our own.
As far as II am concerned, although I cannot vote for further gratuities because the country is in such a deplorable financial state, I think the greatest possible blame should be laid upon those who brought about such a state of affairs that we cannot now do for the returned soldier what we promised to do for him, and what he has, perhaps, every reason to expect we should do for him.


James Arthurs: I * am somewhat surprised at the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Power), and who was a member of the committee investigating Bill No. 10.
I am afraid that his attendance could not have been-


Charles Gavan Power: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman a moment? I stated on the floor

of the House that I thought it quite possible I might be appointed a member of this committee, but that I considered, in view of the rules of the House, that since I had pronounced myself so strongly against gratuities I should not be so appointed. But II was appointed to the committee in spite of that pronouncement.


James Arthurs: This is the second occasion on which the hon. gentleman has stated that he is personally opposed to any further gratuities. In that he bears out the remarks of the hftn. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie)-possibly with that intention, I do not know. The hon. member for North Simcoe asserted in this House that the committee was hand picked and that the men selected were known to be opposed to further gratuities. That assertion has already been denied on the part of several members, and I can only say that for myself no man canvassed me, and that I went on that committee with an open mind-not only with an open mind, but for various obvious reasons I was decidedly in favour of doing whatever was possible for the returned soldier, and I believe in that I was of the same mind as the majority of the committee. Many members of that committee had been overseas, others had their sons or other relatives and their friends at the front, some of whom had failed to come back.
The member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) boasted to-day that although he was opposing the report of the committee in certain particulars he had had three sons overseas whose combined term of service was eleven years. One member of that committee, Mr. Speaker, had three sons overseas who failed to come back. It is decidedly unfair to say of that man at least that his sympathies were not with the returned soldier.


Charles Gavan Power: I did not say that.


James Arthurs: I was not referring to the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). But that hon. gentleman did say some things. In the first place, while the committee stated that no further gratuities were possible at the present time, he went further and said that they should not be given under any circumstances. He has also said that he is in favour of the abolition of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. Now, if the investigations of our committee proved anything they proved that notwithstanding the charges which have been indiscriminately made against that department, the work done by it was much greater than we had
anticipated or ever thought of. This department takes care of the men who have been disabled and who require further medical treatment either now or at any future time. In that respect, therefore, the hon. member is very much mistaken; I am satisfied that he will not get one follower throughout this great Dominion who, thinking the subject over, will say that the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment should be abolished. On the contrary, we should extend the department; and I may say incidentally that while the committee found it impossible to recommend the granting of any further gratuities at the present time owing to the financial condition of the country and other considerations which I shall mention later, we found also-and we were unanimous in the conclusion-that everything possible should be done, first, for the men who had been disabled in their efforts for us in this war; and second, for the widows and the children of those men who failed to come back.
I have said that the statement has been made that this committee was biased, and I have endeavoured to prove that the contrary was the fact. This committee held a great many sessions; I understand that there were fifty or sixty meetings. We had witnesses from all parts of Canada. We sat morning, afternoon and night, even on Sundays on one or more occasions, in order that we might have a finding to place before Parliament before the close of this session. We went into the matter very thoroughly, and our opinion, shortly, was this:	The
adoption of any of the large or general schemes of gratuities would bring about no permanent, basis of settlement. If we took any one of those schemes there would be no guarantee, no guarantee could be given by any man or any body of men that would settle for all time the question of the civil re-establishment of the soldier. All hon. members know that there is going to be a certain amount of unemployment and hardship during the present winter, and if we acceded to the proposals put forward by Mr. Plynn or by any of these bodies, would we have any guarantee that there -would be no unemployment this winter? Would we have any guarantee that these men would not soon lose or spend this money in some way? Would we have any guarantee that the country would be protected against unemployment? I contend that we would have the same obligations to meet even if we acceded to the request that an additional

gratuity be granted. We know that these problems must recur from time to time; and the finding of the committee was that we should turn down, to use a short term, the various proposals placed before us for a general gratuity, in favour of relieving cases of necessity during the present winter and providing for those cases that might occur in the future.
I wish to say a few words with regard to the various schemes of a general character that were placed before us. The first scheme was that of Mr. Flynn. For obvious reasons, I do not think any member will frankly say that he is in favour of this scheme. The proposal was that a grant of $1,000 be made for service in Canada, $1,500 for service in England, $2,000 for service in France, regardless of length of service or anything else. When asked the question before the committee whether he would give the $1,000 to a man who had only been in service for two or three days, Mr. Flynn said1 that he certainly would. The chief trouble that has been experienced in connection with the gratuity that has already been granted is based upon its inequality. We found that gratuities were granted to and accepted by men who in the ordinary sense of the word did not need them. A great many civil servants went overseas and while there drew full pay as civil servants as well as their military pay. It is quite true that their dependents did not get separation allowance, but ' in all other respects they were treated the same and received the same pay as any other soldier. Upon their return to Canada they went back to their ordinary positions, received any increases which might have been given to others of their rank while they were away, and received the gratuity in addition. Other men in the employ, perhaps, of railway companies or of private individuals got the same gratuity . under practically the same circumstances. This difficulty of inequality, therefore, would not be remedied by the proposal of Mr. Flynn; in fact, it would leave us exactly as we were before.
The second proposal was that of the Great War Veterans' Association, and it had all the elements that make for failure. The gratuity plan as proposed by the Great War Veterans' Association put a premium upon a man's service as related to a particular year. In other words, a man who went over in 1914-and many young fellows of adventurous spirit joined the army in the autumn of 1914 in the expectation that the war would not last very long, perhaps only

a few months-would receive, on account of the simple fact that he entered the army, a grant of $500, then an additional $1,000 if he reached England during that year, and an additional $1,000 if he reached France that year. 'Mr, Speaker, the young man who volunteered and went to the front in 1916 or 1917, after the sufferings of our men at Ypres and the Somme had become known, was a greater patriot and deserved much more credit-if indeed, there is any measure to the credit due to these men- than the man who went ov%r there in the first days of the war. Under the plan submitted by the Great War Veterans' Association this man was discriminated against. All a man had to do was to go over in 1914 and reach France that year or the succeeding year, and if he returned to Canada within two weeks after he got to France he would receive the maximum gratuity of $2,500; whereas the man who went over in 1916, knowing to a great extent the awful character of the war, and remained there until the last gun was fired, would receive a very much smaller sum. In other words, the Great War Veterans' Association plan had absolutely no regard to the length or character of the service rendered, other than such as could be found in the proposal that a twenty-five per cent feduction be made in the case of those who had not seen combatant service.
During this debate we have had one prominent advocate of the Great War Veterans' Association, the member for North Simeoe (Mr. Currie). '


Henry Arthur Mackie: Did the committee consider the Great War Veterans' Association plan as an absolute proposition and was it turned down as such, or was the plan presented to the committee purely and simply as a suggestion?


James Arthurs: The plan was put before the committee as a straight proposition. It was modified by some of the witnesses in certain details, but as I understood it, the representatives of the association put the plan forward as a concrete suggestion.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Did your committee suggest to the Great War Veterans' Association that any suggested. modification of their plan would be considered by the committee?


James Arthurs: Just in the same way
as we were willing to consider suggestions made by any man in Canada. We made no exceptions in favor of the Great War Veterans' Association or any other body.

We had suggestions from private individuals. We had a very good suggestion, to my mind the best of all, because it eliminated many of the inequalities of the previous gratuity, from Mr. Margeson. This suggestion was put forward entirely on his own behalf, without regard to any body else. We were quite willing to accept any proposals, whether put forward by the Great War Veterans' Association or by any other body or person.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Did the committee turn down the proposition of the Great War Veterans' Association by reason of any discrepancies between the amounts paid to one soldier and another, or by rea'son of the fact generally that the money could not be raised by this country to pay the gratuities which had been demanded by that association?


James Arthurs: For both reasons. The committee considered all those schemes on their merits. Then we took into consideration the financial condition of the country and the financial requirements of the men. As I said before, the hon. member for Sim-coe North (Mr. Currie) has been in this House the champion exponent of the scheme of the Great War Veterans' Association, and I just want to read a few words that he said during the course of the debate as to his appreciation of the word " need," because the whole scheme of the Great War Veterans' Association is based on the common application or definition of the word " need " as applied to gratuities. The hon. member for North Simcoe shortly after the commencement of his speech, speaking of the Great War Veterans' Association, said:
They have not asked for charity. They are asking; for gratuity and gratuity means a grant in money or in kind which will compensate them for lost time during the war and enable them to carry on in civilian life in the future.
Later on he says, as reported on page 1856 of unrevised Hansard:
It is a grant by the nation in recognition of his services and the losses that he has sustained on behalf of the State.
Later on, on the same page, about the middle, he says:
When you speak of men as being in need, you mean charity.


Mr. CURRIE:: The hon. gentleman is, of course, quoting from my speech in this debate, and I might very well object to that as not being permissible under the rules of the House, but I am quite willing to let
that go. If he will examine my remarks, he will find no reference to the Great War Veterans' Association. I referred absolutely to the returned soldiers. I said in conclusion that I was quite willing to support the proposal of the Great War Veterans' Association and the amendment, that was all.


James Arthurs: I am quite willing to take the hon. gentleman's word, and to apply his remarks to all the gratuities alike.' The same thing applies to every one of the schemes that were before the committee. They all hinge upon the definition of the word " need ", and I am pointing out the definition as given by the hon. member for North Simcoe when he says that according to his opinion these grants must be given to all indiscriminately, that is, given as a reward for services and to make up for losses sustained by the various members of the force. He says: If you discriminate and use the word " need ", it means charity. In other words, the committee accepted the view that if you took any one of those schemes, you must apply it to all the members of the force who would be entitled to it according to the ordinary acceptance of the word. While we are all having a heart-to-heart talk, I may say personally that if the finances of the country could stand it, I believe in the scheme ' of Mr. Margeson, and my only objection is that the finances of the country cannot stand it. By following Mr. Margeson's scheme the various inequalities existing in connection with the present gratuities would be obviated, and the common private soldier, who after all has the greatest need for re-establishment, would have what was coming to him in proportion to the others.
I have no hesitation in saying that, while I subscribed to the report and am quite willing to stand or fall by the committee's report which says that we cannot see our way clear at the present time to advocate or recommend any gratuities as a general thing.
This is largely owing to two factors that enter into this discussion, the first and the principal one being the financial condition of Canada at the present time. I am not going to go over the figures, as it is quite unnecessary for me to do so; but the fact remains that counting the capital expenditures alone or the expenditures which are absolutely fixed by statute and the interest which we must pay upon the present Victory Loan and the loan which must follow it in order to meet our obligations, Canada

will be required to find a sum of approximately $320,000,000 or $330,000,000. That means $40 for every man, woman and child in Canada per annum, counting our population at 8,000,000, which is a fairly liberal estimate. In order words, every family of five will, under the present circumstances, be required to find about $200 per annum on the average in order to fulfil our present unavoidable obligations. Your committee felt that it was utterly impossible that, under the present circumstances, we should add to that $20,000,000,	$30,000,000 or
$40,000,000. We, however, provided for assistance to those soldiers who might be in need at the present time, and we also made certain recommendations for changes in the present regulations. *
As regards special cases, we have altogether thirty-three recommendations, which I am sure every hon. member has read. While we could not follow every suggestion, we at least attempted to give a fair consideration to each and every one of those questions, and we made certain recommendations which I believe are entirely in the interest of the men themselves and mean fair treatment to them by the country, and that is what they certainly deserve. Some of the suggestions which we were unable to recommend were of great merit. We have one mentioned in the amendment of the *hon. member for Winnipeg Centre (Mr. Andrews), namely, the one regarding the Pensions Board. I am one member of the committee who was very insistent, as the chairman will bear out, in trying to increase the award presently given by the Pensions Board to orphans in Canada. I did the best I could, but I was confronted with the fact, that the committee after all had nothing to do with pensions. We were appointed to look after Bill No. 10, and the best thing we could do was to make a recommendation that the Pensions Board should be continued and should look into and consider further these inequalities, and that if any hardships existed, the Government should make such provision through the Patriotic Fund as would alleviate any distress during the coming winter. This has been done. It is quite unnecessary that I should read the recommendation, but it is one of the clauses which the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre desires to have stricken from this report. Does the hon. member for a minute mean that those widows and orphans are receiving too much at the present time? Does he think that we exceeded our duty when we asked that the Government should take this into con-
sideration and recommended that if there is any trouble during the winter, the trouble should be alleviated through the Patriotic Fund ?
A second suggestion which we were unable to make any finding upon was the matter of life insurance. I do not think there is a doubt In the mind of any hon. member who has considered this question at all, that this matter should at the earliest possible moment be cleared up, and that we should make some provision whereby our boys, who went to the front and who have come home suffering from any disability which will make life insurance more expensive to them, should be relieved of the difference between the ordinary expense of life insurance and that which they would presently have to pay.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON:: When does
the hon. member think that that time will arrive? .


James Arthurs: I think the time has already arrived; indeed, so far as that is concerned, we are away behind the times. But we could not do anything except to take conditions as we found them. This is one of the matters that were brought before the committee, and while we did not possess the expert knowledge necessary to gives an actuary's decision on the question, we have recommended to the Government the appointment of actuaries to look into the matter, and I think that the House will bear me out when I say that this was a very wise provision. It is also one which the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews) would have struck from the report.
The figures which have been previously given in this debate differ somewhat from those which I would submit in regard to the present commitments of the Government, which I set out in this way:
Gratuities which have already been given to the soldiers in cash, or which will be given, according to the estimate, before the 1st of April next, $153,686,577; return of dependents, $1,916,578; or a total of $155,603,155. There can be no doubt that these amounts are a direct bonus to the soldiers who have returned to Canada. A man receives no gratuity until he has been discharged, and! these amounts so paid must be to men categorically A 1, or those who have received a pension. The second class of payments are pensions, $53,536,498, and payments by the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment $57,045,644, or a total of $110,582,162, which has been paid directly and

solely to the disabled men and the widows and orphans. These two commitments are essentially for the soldier himeelf and for his re-establishment in Canada, and they total some $256,000,000. In addition to that, as has been pointed out frequently in the debate, during the present fiscal year we will make a payment of $48,228,103 for land settlement. Personally, I do not think that in any sense the land settlement scheme' is one for the benefit of the soldier. I think it has been put forward by the Government entirely in the interests of the colonization of Canada in order	to have	men
put on the land in the shortest time and in the best manner possible. In my opinion it- is a good scheme, and I think that one Canadian soldier who will honestly attempt to take up farming i-s worth any ten Doukhobors who were ever brought to Canada. He is a far better citizen and is more apt to make a success at farming than any foreigner, and any expenditure which the Government makes along this line should be supported by Parliament, and will certainly have my support now or at any time in the future.
I desire to say a few words in regard to - the finding of the committee. The first item of expenditure recommended is $9,000,000. This is to equalize the gratuities of those Canadians or residents of Canada who joined the Biutisli forces for service in the air, or in the motorboat patrol of the navy, or in any of the mechanical troops which were advertised in Canada, and for which this Government asked for recruits. It applies also to British reservists, who answered the call from Canada. These men must necessarily have been residents of Canada before the war, and must have returned to Canada and taken up their residence in this country again. As they are Canadians, 1 think the House will agree with me that they should receive the same gratuity as any other Canadian. They were fighting the same war, and were then and are now Canadians. There is no reason therefore why the gratuity should not be the same in their case as in the others. As I say, this involves an expenditure of $9,000,000. The second class provided for are those who spent money for the return of their dependents from 'Ehglandi. It was found that after the armistice the Government had made provision whereby the expenses of dependents returning to Canada were paid by the Government to the extent of a third-class passage on the ocean, with a similar provision for rail, 117
amounting usually to about $50 for each dependent. But those Canadian soldiers who sent their dependents home previous to the armistice did so at their own expense, many of them on the advice contained in circulars issued in England, and from the terms of which they considered themselves in duty bound to send their dependents home. The committee found that they were entitled to have the same amount paid them as was paid in the other case. This will involve about $1,000,000, which expenditure it will not be difficult to defend. The third recommendation was free clothing for those hospital patients under the care of the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment. This is a very small matter, but it is of grave concern to the men. The men in the military hospitals have clothing supplied free while those in the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment up to the present have not enjoyed that consideration. The amount required for this purpose is unknown to the committee. The question has arisen regarding our recommendation as to pay and allowances for those undergoing treatment in the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. I might say in this connection, bearing out the remarks of a previous speaker, that your committee had only in mind those men who had been regularly discharged from the Canadian service and who were under treatment by the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment simply as patients, in which case they should receive equal pay, colonel or private.
The committee had no intention of taking anything from the pay of the man who was still in the service, or who, by the action of this Government, was taken from one hospital under the Militia Department and placed in another under the Department of Soldiers? Civil Re-establishment. I think that is a matter that will be dealt with under the regulations which will be formulated as a result of this recommendation.


Peter Robert McGibbon: On what ground does the committee justify the taking of a diseased patient, no matter whether he is an officer or private, and treating him in an ordinary private hospital at the present time?


James Arthurs: Personally, (I can see no reason why two discharged men under the same circumstances, whether major-generals or privates, should not receive exactly the same treatment, provided they are both civilians. Men who are civilians, and who are not under continuous treatment are the men who were in the mind of the committee



when this recommendation was made. Is that what was in the mind of the hon. member for Muskolta?


Peter Robert McGibbon: What I had in mind was that the treatment which is provided is practically the treatment provided for charity patients in an ordinary hospital, which I think is not sufficient.
Mr. AlRTHURS : According to the regulations, any man coming back to the hospital for treatment of a recurring disability from wounds or otherwise receives the pay and allowance of his rank. That is the regulation that we are amending. When a man who has been regularly discharged comes back to the hospital for treatment of a recurring disability, whether from wounds or from other causes, he is a civilian, and the committee saw no possible reason why one civilian, because he happened to be a major-general, should get a major-general s pay, when, under exactly the same circumstances, another man received the pay of a private. *


Peter Robert McGibbon: My hon. friend has not answered my question.


James Arthurs: sent conditions I am quite ready to stand by it and support it in toto.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I ask the hop. gentleman whether the plan of the Great War Veterans was an actual proposition or a -mere suggestion. My understanding was that it was an absolute proposition and no,t a suggestion. Am I right, Sir?


James Arthurs: I understand it was an absolute proposition and my knowledge of it is verified in this way: that when it was pointed out to the principal witness for the G.W.V.A. that his plan would work out unfairly regarding service-that is that the man would lose a hundred dollars because he lost a day or two, he then proposed to bring it down to a basis of a monthly gratuity.


Henry Arthur Mackie: What witness answered that question?


James Arthurs: Mr. Waistell.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Will the hon, gentleman explain to me the evidence that is to be found on page 649:
] >y Mr. Pardee :
Q. Would there be any call in this scheme which would necessarily keep these people her 3? Take this instance; a man left a month ago for the United States, and living there for a short time declares he desires to reside in Canada and comes back and makes application.
Then there is this further evidence to be found on page 650:
Mr. Pardee:	They can give him his money
to-day and to-morrow he goes.
Mr. Waistell:	Good luck to him. I will
answer your question to the best of my ability. I said at the very outset these are suggestions which are made to members of Parliament just by our own Canadian soldiers. We are not legal lights, neither are we educational experts to define these documents in such a degree of nicety that we will get everything off to the precise line; we are giving you suggestions on broad principles, which in your greater executive ability you will perfect.
What has the hen. gentleman to say to this evidence of the chief witness on behalf of the committee who drew up the plan of the Great War Veterans?


James Arthurs: I have just this to say: the question is a pretty long one, and I did not follow it in its entirety. I spoke as a member of the committee, and it appeared *to me that this suggestion, whatever you call it, advanced hy the Great War Veterans' Association, was put forward as a concrete plan, subject, of course, to variations. The association were quite willing to have variations but as it appeared to me it was a concrete plan. I am not 
prepared to go through a thousand pages of evidence or to listen to the hon. gentleman read extracts from that voluminous evidence and answer offhand; I am not to be caught that way.


Henry Arthur Mackie: One mme question, and I am through. I have no objection if the hon. gentleman does not want to answer.


James Arthurs: I am quite willing to answer.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. When the Speaker rises the hon. member should resume his seat. The other point of order is that when an hon. member has concluded his remarks, the House not being in committee, it is not in order even with his permission to ask him a series of questions.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: As a member of the committee which had in hand the work that is under discussion to-night, I deem it incumbent upon me to take part in this debate although it should not be necessary to say very much in support of the committee's report. It is proper, however, that I should say something on account of the line that has been taken by some hon. gentlemen, particularly on this side in regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews). It does seem to me that the trend.' of the discussion can only leave one impression on the minds of members, merely, that if by reason of the amendment of the hon. gentleman the report is sent back to the committee it can only mean it is sent back to approve of the G. W. V, A. plan. I think it is wise that the House should take notice of the arbitrary nature of the amendment. It must not be forgotten that the G. W. V. A. plan which was only one of the schemes presented to the Special Committee, involved the expenditure of a sum ranging from $400,000,000 to $700,000,000 or $800,000,000. In addition to that, there was what is known as "the Mr. Flynn proposal," which involved the possible expenditure of upwards .of $1,000,000,000-a-thousand million dollars. There was also the Margeson plan. Yet this House has been discussing for hours an amendment that, even if carried, will still leave for discussion in the country the Flynn proposal which is said to be backed by twenty or thirty thousand returned soldiers. I bring this before the House for the purpose of showing the futility-I might say without

disrespect to any person the absurdity- of dealing with one proposition when there are three propositions that must be dealt with if you deal with any at all.
What would the 20,000 supporters of the Flynn proposal say if you do not send their proposal back? This country is to-day in a discentered nervous condition, and I 'think the House ought to take, and does take, cognizance of that fact, which was ever present to the minds of the Special Committee when they were dealing with what they speedily conceived to be the greatest question that has ever been brought before any special, or, indeed, any committee of Parliament within the recollection of any one living. iSo the committee approached the question with that sense of responsibility in keeping with the gravity of the situation they had to meet. I hope this House will be seized of the magnitude of the question, and that when hon. members put forward suggestions, however well they may be received by the House, and however patiently the House may listen to them, they will give the committee credit for the fact that it sat day and night for four weeks, and had the opportunity of seeing and hearing witnesses, of judging of the truth and the value of their evidence, and in addition to that heard every scheme presented in a thousandfold stronger way than any hon. member has brought forward objections to-night against the report of the committee. Men who had studied 'the question came prepared, asi no men had ever done before, to launch and to substantiate their claim. Just here I would like to say with regard to the remarks made by the hon. member (Mr. Currie) that it is unfair that he should come into this House and without any foundation whatever cast an aspersion against the members of that committee, who, as I have said, were seized of the responsibilities of their position and filled with the gravity of the case, and in a light and airy manner charge that they were hand picked and prepared to bring in a report of this kind before they heard a tittle of evidence. The hon. member (Mr. Currie) brings forward nothing but his own assertion to substantiate such a charge. It is a charge that ordinarily would be beneath contempt, but he stated it, as he admits himself, before a public meeting; afterwards, when brought to task in this House, he partially withdraws the charge, but still leaves the sting. He has not acted in a way that would lend conviction to his statement, because he knows from the character of' the otheT members-saying nothing of myself-that
the committee was composed of representative men, men of high standing, probity and honour, and he as a returned soldier should have been the last man to cast any reflection upon them. Now, as I said, that committee bent all their energies to the task before them, and it was a severe task, because I think we had as chairman a severe task master. Without taking undue time I would like to pay this tribute to the hon. chairman of the committee (Mr. Calder), that having sat in many committees, both inside this House and outside, I have never yet seen a man who' devoted more energy, better methods, finer judgment and greater patience than the gentleman who presided over that committee.
The next point I would like to make is that the decision of the committee was unanimous, representing the opinion of members from both sides of this House. That fact, to my mind, ought to sink deeply into the minds of hon. members. The members to your left, Mr. Speaker, were selected by that side of the House; the members to your right were selected by this side of the House; and notwithstanding the bitterness of party strife, notwithstanding the intense animosities engendered in political life, it seems to me a striking testimony to the high standing and probity of our public men that after threshing out the questions presented to them and agreeing to disagree, to waive a point here and a point there, that on a matter fraught with such vital consequences to the country, and which might easily have been thrown into the vortex of party politics, they came into this House clean and unsullied as members of this Parliament, true Canadian subjects, doing what they thought was best in the interests of the country at a very critical time. Therefore I say to the hon. member from North Simcoe, who has Mr. Flynn's approval apparently, that when he tells us that Mr. Flynn is willing to withdraw his scheme for gratuities of $2,000, $1,500, and $1,000 to the men in France, in Britain and in -Canada and that he is willing on, their behalf to take $500, $300 and $200 instead, the hon.. member pays to this committee the greatest compliment possible, because the report has convinced him that this country cannot stand the expenditure of the greater sums.
The hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) came forward with the statement that his heart was filled with love for the returned soldier-as our hearts are also filled-but seemingly carried away

by the exuberance of his fancy, we have that gentleman taking the industrial concerns of this country practically by the throat, shaking from them the profits that they had won during the war, and giving those profits to the returned soldiers. The industrial life of this country, Sir, is today playing a very honourable part in the re-establishment of the returned soldier. We all know hundreds of factories that have increased 'their capacities for the purpose of employing more returned soldiers. A gentleman to-day told me, after hearing the remarks of the hon, member, 'that he had increased his capacity for the employment of workmen to the extent of 650 men, because he was desirous of doing as much as he possibly cou'ld to assimilate and reestablish more returned soldiers than he could in his former plant. Under those circumstances, by adopting the suggestion cf my hon. friend you confiscate, you stagnate. You kill the industrial life of this country by drastic remedies and extreme measures, and-at the same time you kill the re-establishment of -all the industrial workers who belong to the returned soldier class; you put them out of employment. I do submit, Sir, that the hon. gentleman has not done any particular service to the subject under discussion, and I think he did not reach that high standard that he usually does reach when he suggested a remedy of that kind, which would produce such disastrous results.
The hon. member also suggested a referendum to the people, a referendum where the question would be: Do you want to tax yourselves to the extent of seven or eight hundred millions in addition to what you have to meet at present? If so, mark your ballots, "yes." My experience is that people are not rushing to the ballots to load themselves up with taxation, either through the referendum or otherwise.
The patriotism of our people has been well shown, in Belgian relief work, in hospital ship relief work, in the Patriotic Fund, in the soldiers' comforts work, in the voluntary subscriptions amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. Their patriotism, I say, has been shown, and these things should not be forgotten either by the returned soldier or by any one else. To submit to the people by means of a referendum the question whether they should vote for the taxation of themselves- through a direct tax on land, as has been suggested, or in any other way-would be to cause the question of relief to the returned soldier to run the gauntlet of ani-

mosity, an experience which it could not possibly survive. To my mind the plan iB absolutely futile and chimerical; it is not worthy of consideration.
The member for East York (Mr. Foster) had many schemes of taxation. He, like others, was going to raise these hundreds of millions by taxes on theatre tickets, theatre chairs, and through the medium of our natural resources. Do these gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, understand how much a million dollars is? Do they understand how much more a hundred million is, how much more nine or ten hundred millions are? Yet they talk about theatre tickets, theatre chairs and natural resources. The natural resources are in the ground; it will take millions of dollars to get them out of the ground and develop them. It will be many years before our natural resources, under the best-laid scheme, can produce much annual revenue. One would almost think, judging from the way hon. gentlemen speak of this matter, that you could go out with a spade, dig up the gold and throw it over to the returned soldier. True, Canada is a wealthy country, splendidly endowed by Divine Providence with immense wealth, hidden and unhidden. But when you talk about our natural resources you are forgetting that the problem we have to deal with is one of to-day, not one of twenty years hence. This money is asked for to-day because they say the returned soldier needs it to-day. As the chairman of the committee has pointed out,-and I think this should sink deeply into our minds-this country has commitments for the fiscal year 1919-20 amounting to $699,000,000, which we must raise, and most of which has been spent. In addition to that, there are figures that the chairman has submitted. I shall not tire the House by repeating them, but these sums are enormous. Are we seized of the enormity of the debt that this war has laid upon the country? I do not know whether the House is taking this question seriously. I am afraid that some members on our own side do not take it quite as seriously, perhaps, as members on the other side of the House. I am referring more particularly to the member for Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt) who made a most scathing criticism of the report, but-questioned by the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) he whund up by showing that he concurred in the report of the committee-though he had been attacking it. The hon. member had not read the report; he was making a guess. He said that he

*wanted to deal with the men who were in need-the disabled, the blind, tlhe halt, the lame, the legless, the armless. That is what he wanted, and that is what this committee have largely based their report upon. That, I believe, is the opinion of this country. That, I believe, is the opinion of the man on the street. That, I believe, is the opinion of seventy per cent of the soldiers who have returned to this country and are re-established, and is, I believe, the opinion of fifteen per cent of the remainder.
I have no hesitation in saying that had the returned soldier been left alone, had he been left free from the nagging and the false leadership of men like the member for North Simcoe and a few others throughout the country, no crisis would have to be feared. The hon. member comes here and tells us that the returned soldiers are grumbling here and grumbling there; I want to tell him that he is largely responsible for the grumbling of the returned soldier here and there.
A peculiar thing about this discussion is the fact that all hon. members who have criticised the report now suggest the expenditure of a lower sum than any of the schemes that were proposed. They have said: " Too much, but let us do something." So that this report practically stands free from any serious criticism in this House, absolutely free from criticism on the part of any one who has read it, except, possibly, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). He had some criticism to make, but he waived it; for the good of the country, for the ending of the unrest, for the settlement of this question, he waived, as we all did, certain points that we would like to have hung our hats on and fought for, and did fight for. Each member of that committee surrendered his personal views, surrendered in some instances his personal judgment. The cause was so great and so serious that we as free men, not hand-picked, felt the responsibility of our position, and tried to judge the case upon the evidence and to bring in a report in accordance therewith.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) tells us that he would give the same wages to the private soldier as the soldier would have earned at home as a common labourer. I made a mental note at the time that in that case the returned soldier would get nothing. The married soldier was getting far more than the common labourer. He got $401 a year at $1.10 a day. He got $360 by way of separation
allowance, $240 by way of patriotic grant, $100 worth of clothes, medical and dental services to the value of $25, a total of $1,126. If you take the gratuity at $600, roughly, and add to the $1,126 an amount of $200 by way of gratuity for one year, you get $1,326 a year that the private soldier was getting, while the common labourer at $2.50 a day would get $912. The member for Qu'Appelie said: Deduct the amount of the gratuity and then give the private soldier as much as a common labourer would get. Well, the private soldier got $414 more than the common labourer, charging up $200 by way of gratuity. I mention that only for the purpose of showing that an' evanescent opinion, ill-considered or probably not considered at all, by members who have not had the advantage of weeks of labour upon the committee, is unsafe as a guide to the formation of a conclusion through any debate in this House.
The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), I think, and another hon. member who spoke, seemed to forget that we are approaching winter; that the unemployment problem is likely to be a serious one; that the evidence was that there were in Canada to-day 30,000 men out of employment. That is not very many for the whole of Canada and not much more than in normal times at this time of the year; but the evidence also was that in large centres, especially in some sections of the West where industrial life is not too plentiful, there would probably be great unemployment. Therefore, this committee, again seized with the responsibility they had, fearful of that responsibility not being lived up to, sat down daily in the interest of the country to consider where this country would be, if, in the absence of some provision being made to take care of that unemployment, insurrection, crime, disorder, should break out in Canada. That does not necessarily come from the returned soldier. No one thought of such a thing, but we know that in the winter time there are periods when men are forced out of their ordinary employment and into idleness when the very worst passions are sometimes engendered. The fact of a portion of the civilian population being out of employment makes the case far more difficult, and this committee reported that in their judgment this country should do something to prepare against such a contingency. The report says that we think that the provincial, municipal and civic authorities should take care of the civilian population as they have always had to do, and it is this country's duty to

protect the returned soldier from want, to give him employment, to provide against unemployment.
I want to say a word here to those members in this House who so glibly speak about this, that or the other thing as being doled out to the soldier as charity. It is an unfortunate thing that that expression is being used so often, and I believe it is used, whether intentionally or not, for no good purpose. It can serve no good end. On this side of the House as well as on that, there is not a heart but beats warmly for the returned soldier, and there is not a man whose judgment would not lead him to do everything he could for the returned soldier, and it ill befits hon. members to throw the taunt in this House that this way of giving or that way of giving is charity, and that the soldier does not want that. There is nothing of charity about the matter, no matter what the form of the grant, no matter what the grant itself may be. The thing furthest from the mind of every member of 'the committee and, I am sure, of every member of this House is that the soldier should be at all offended, and I do not think the soldier would be offended if he were let alone, and if he did not have these things so continually thrust upon his mind in an endeavour to convince him that things are not what they should be and that he is being insulted in the form of a grant or gratuity. I do not think the man who Speaks in that way is the very best cititzen for Canada or is properly seized with the duty he owes to Canadian citizenship. I do not think the returned soldier himself is prone to talk in that way; in fact, I have seen many returned soldiers, and I have heard far more grumbling from their champions wtho are not returned soldiers than I have ever heard from the soldiers themselves.
One hon. member said that they would abolish the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishmen't, the vocational training branch and the employment fund. In other words, that if this report is referred back, it is for the purpose of ending all the work in which the country is now engaged. The hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) sought to minimize the work of these various departments of Government. I think I voice the sentiments of the committee when I say that the members of the committee were thoroughly surprised and astonished at the remarkable executive ability shown by the heads of these departments, at the scope and magnitude of their work, the men they had to handle and the con-

ditions they were working under. It was a matter of great surprise to the committee at large that Canada had done so much along those lines for the care of the disabled man and his dependents, and it was such a matter of remark that the committee incorporated in their report a testimonial to the men at the head of those departments. Yet the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Currie) comes in to queer the whole thing, because in some office in Toronto there is one returned soldier and half a dozen other men who are not returned soldiers. The returned soldier has been sought after and put into all the positions imaginable in the various departments. There are practically no persons but returned soldiers in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment; out of the hundreds employed I understand there are only two or three who are not returned soldiers.


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: Ninety per cent of the males.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Ninety per cent of the males are returned soldiers. Yet we have to meet that sort of thing which has been bandied about on the streets of Canada here and there by every man who is disgruntled. If hon. gentlemen had been on that committee and had heard some of the evidence in regard to the men who are being taken care of, whose disease cannot be diagnosed and whose condition was described by witnesses who had seen them, they would have heard the most human story they ever listened to. Such stories were listened to by that committee in the most human way, not with frivolity and lightness but with compassion in their hearts for those poor fellows. One witness described such a man as that in the way in which I am describing him to you now: " I cannot tell you what the disease was; the man was-what shall I say?-burned out; his energy gone, his mind gone, his physical being strong, but burned out- The hon. member who would, by this amendment abolish the only way in which we are taking care of such men to-day, is doing a questionable service even to the returned soldier or to this country. I am opposed to the amendment because it says that the report should be referred back, because in sending that report back, you are sending it back for the purpose of doing a certain thing only and taking no notice of the other plans proposed. Canada in regard to her treatment of the returned soldier leads the world, as is ad-

mitted everywhere, and people from the United States and even from England are coming here to see how this country is carrying on this work. Yet with all the flippancy and ease in the world, some few bon. members, regardless of the responsibility they bear to their constituents, Or to their country or to the returned soldier, come here and suggest the annihilation of a splendid machine that has been set up to care for those invalided soldiers and to enable them to help themselves. For that reason, if for no other, I say that no hon. gentleman in this House can possibly support a proposition that will wipe out a thing that has cost the country so much money and has been of such inestimable benefit to the soldiers, who deserve the best treatment that Canada can give them.
On motion of Mr. Middlebro the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of Hon. A. K. Maclean, the House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
Friday, November 7, 1919.