1923-06-11

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

Mr. HEALY:: 1.	How much money has been paid to the Canadian Press, Limited, since its organization, by the Dominion government?
2.	How much of the amounts advanced have been used for (a) leased wires; (b) cable service; (c) other purposes ?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: $311,499.99 has been paid to Canadian Press, Limited, made up of $287,499.99 from the grant of $50,000 voted each year since 1917-18 to aid in paying leased wire rentals, and $24,000 on account of the annual grant of $8,000 for cable services, paid since 1920-21 to Canadian Press, Limited, and formerly to the Canadian Associated Press. Statements of disbursements which indicate that the government grants have been allocated to these purposes are submitted regularly.


COST OF LIVING
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to hold an inquiry into the present high cost of living in Canada, especially into fuel, food, rents, clothing, bread, and
Questions

other necessities of life, to include cigarettes, cigars and tobacco and restaurant prices?
2.	If the government does not propose to hold such an inquiry, will they empower, this session by law, municipalities, or grand juries lawfully convened throughout Canada, to hold such inquiries so as to protect the public from extortion, and will such concurrent jurisdiction be given in such a local way to deal with the problems?
3.	Will the government see that the consumer will get the benefit of any reductions in taxes set out in the budget, and what will be done to protect the consumer accordingly?


Right Hon. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	This question does not seem to be of a character that the government could be expected to answer.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In my judgment the third question is out of order.


MR. W. A. DRYDEN
Mr. MAYBEE:: 1.	What amount of money, if any, has been paid oy the present government to W. A. Dry den, of Ontario county, Ontario?
2.	What was the money paid for?
3.	What trips, if any, has Mr. Dryden made at the expense of the Dominion since the present government took office?
4.	What benefits have the Dominion obtained from Mr. Dry den's trips at the public expense?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 
LITTLE GEORGE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LAVIGUEUR
1.	Was the sentence of deportation carried out against Little George? If so, when? If not, why?
2.	Is the said Little George the same person who was tried for murder at Quebec, and whose three companions were hanged?
3.	Who are the officers of the Immigration department who had charge of Little George w'hen he made his mysterious escape?
4.	(a) What means were taken to capture this man, and (b) is it the intention of the department to continue the search ?
Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	No. Escaped.
2.	Yes.
3.	Guard Carbray.
4.	(a) Information at once transmitted to local, permanent and federal police, (b) Yes.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. LUCAS:: 1.	What amount of land is held by the Canadian Pacific Railway along its own lines?
2.	What amount of land is held by the Canadian Pacific Railway along Canadian National lines?
3.	What amount of land has Canadian Pacific Railway Company sold along its own lines in the past five years, and what was the average price per acre obtained ?
4.	What amount of land has the Canadian Pacific Railway Company sold along Canadian National lines in the past five years and what was the average price per acre obtained?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. GOOD:: 1. The requirements and procedure regarding liquor (spirits, wine and beer) exported from Canada (a) when drawback is allowed; (b) when liquor is duty paid.
2. A statement by years for the last ten years giving
(a)	the quantity of liquor manufactured in Canada;
(b)	the quantity of liquor imported into Canada; (c) the quantity of liquor exported from Canada (1) with

Interim Supply
drawback, (2) duty paid; (d) the quantity of liquor entered for consumption in Canada; (e) the gross revenue collected, customs and excise; (f) the gross amount rebated, customs and excise.


MR. W. A. DRYDEN-MR. DUNCAN MARSHALL
Mr. MAYBEE:: For a copy of all communications passing between W. A. Dryden of Ontario country, Ontario, and the government of Canada or any member thereof, or any deputy minister thereof, and also all reports made by either W. A. Dryden, or Duncan Marshall, to the Government or any department thereof.


ST. LAWRENCE SHIP CHANNEL
Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all letters, reports, agreements, telegrams, orders in council, and other correspondence, exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the United States in reference to the international Deep Waterways report, and a proposed agreement for the St. Lawrence Ship channel, since the last session of parliament, 1922.


PURCHASE OF BAIT
Mr. FORKE:: For a copy of all communications in connection with ihe prohibition of American vessels purchasing bait from netters and trap owners in the Maritime Provinces.


CANADIAN MERCANTILE MARINE
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, papers, writings and documents of any kind, passing between any member or department of the government and the Canadian National Railways or Canadian mercantile marine managers or directors or officers, since January 1st, 1922, relating in any way to the vessels of the Canadian mercantile marine, their use or suitability, or making in any wray recommendations as to sale or other disposition of said vessels.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I would ask
my hon. friend to let this motion stand until the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has had a chance to express his view in regard to it.
Motion stands.



INTERIM SUPPLY-SPECIAL BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. VV. S. FIELDING (Minister oi Finance):	Mr. Speaker, I desire to have the
co-operation of the House in the passing of a special Supply Bill. It will be remembered that at an earier stage of the session we adopted resolutions and a bill providing one-sixth of the year's supplies. The two months for which the supply was voted are now expired, and especially in relation to the civil service it is very urgent that we make a further arrangement. I am proposing, and 1 have mentioned this to my hon .friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton),
that we adopt the necessary resolutions for a further supply of one-aixth, being two months. I therefore move:
That one-sixth of each of the resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply from the 20th February last to the 8th June instant inclusive, granting to His Majesty amounts voted of the Main Estimates, and forming a total of $34,349,528, be now concurred in.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no
objection whatever, as I have already told my hon. friend, to his getting his interim supply. He has to have it; the business of the country has to be carried on. The motion will pass subject, of course, to the usual terms, with which my hon. friend is very familiar, that is, that while the money is granted the principle of any vote or the amount of any vote is still open to challenge by the House.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: I beg to move:
Resolved that one-third of the Resolution reported from Committee of Supply on the 13th April, 1923, providing a provisional bonus allowance for the Inside and Outside Services of the Civil Service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1924, and forming a total of $1,833,333.33, be now concurred in.
In this case we did not have the one-sixth vote. We are now voting one-third.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
William Stevens Fielding: I beg to move:
That a sum not exceeding $10,375,530.25 being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items not yet voted, as set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March, 31, 1924, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, excluding the amount of the second item of Resolution No. 141, "Ottawa, New Departmental Building, $500,000" be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1924.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That does not
seem to be in accordance with the first resolution as read. The first resolution as read said "one-sixth."	*


William Stevens Fielding: Oh yes, the Clerks are
simply carrying out their duty. The figures will be correct, I am sure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The first resolution as read said an extra sixth of the whole supply.


William Stevens Fielding: We are taking one-sixth of concurrence and the sixth mentioned here. I think the figures are quite right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Supply-Mile. Boulay
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
William Stevens Fielding: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1924, the sum of $46,558,391.58 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I assume that
is the calculation of the one-sixth.


William Stevens Fielding: I assume so. I have
left it to the officials. I am sure the figures can be relied on.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Fielding thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 202 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1924.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, read the third time and passed.
SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF Mile. BOULAY
On the motion of Hon. W. S. Fielding (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Supply-
Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I take advantage of the presence of our friend the Postmaster General (Mr, Murphy) whom we are all glad to see back in the House with us again, to bring to his attention and to that of the House one of those incidents which, unfortunately, occur from time to time in the administration of public business. I refer to the case of the dismissal of a lady, Mademoiselle Boulay, who was serving apparently with perfect satisfaction to the community, as postmistress in the town of Sayabec. She had the misfortune to be the daughter of a gentleman who formerly represented the constituency of Matane. Mademoiselle Boulay is no longer the postmistress, and I hold in my hand a notification from the Civil Service Commission which shows that a gentleman named Eugene Lacroix has been appointed to that position. At this stage of the session I regret the amount of time that will be necessary even to refer to the most salient portions of the correspondence whioh will show how Mademoiselle Boulay ceased to be an office holder under this act, and how Mr. Lacroix, apparently through the medium of the Civil Service Commission, became her successor.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Postmaster General):: May I interrupt my hon. friend? Does he intend to bring in a motion on this matter? My reason for interrupting is that this is the first intimation I have had of the matter. I have received no notice of it, and I am uninformed at the moment as to the particulars. If my hon. friend is going to terminate his remarks with a motion I wish to ask him if he would have the courtesy to defer it until we go into supply again, say to-morrow. Up to the present I have not had an opportunity to familiarize myself with any of the details.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I had no intention of concluding my remarks with a motion unless it were necessary as a matter of formal procedure. The hon. member for Matane (Mr. Pelletier) is fully acquainted with the circumstances, and I had him sent for so that he might be present, there being an understanding between us that I would not take the matter up in his absence. With the assurance given by the minister, if he feels that he would be in any way embarrassed by taking the matter up to-day, I will defer it until tomorrow.


Charles Murphy: I think I would prefer if the hon. gentleman would allow the matter to stand until to-morrow.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Very well.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Is this a matter of urgent importance? Can it wait for twenty-four hours?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I have agreed to it being deferred.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.



PENSION'S

[Stage Direction]
Pensions-European War and active militia, $32,500,000.
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: Before this appropriation is passed I think it would be advisable that I should supply the committee with a few figures, showing the number of pensioners in Canada. The pensioners are divided into two classes. One class is made up of disability pensioners, and the other class of dependents. On 31st March, 1923, there were 43,263 disability pensioners; on the same date there were 19,794 dependent pensioners; making 63,057 pensioners in all. The amount paid during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1923, for European war pensions was 832,032,074. If we include the Fenian Raid pensions, which are also paid by the Pension

Supply-S. C. R.-Pensions
board, and the general pensions and long service militia pensions, the total expenditure for this purpose for the year 1922-23 was 532,612,242.36. I should be glad, Mr. Chairman, to supply any information which I have before me at the present time and which may be of interest to hon. members. I will give more details in this connection and will give the number of disability pensioners and permanent pensioners in the different districts. They are:
	Disability	Permanent
	Pensioners	Pensioners
Quebec	
Nova Scotia and Prince	3,229	903Edward Island	2.213	606Eastern Ontario	2,062	571Central Ontario	9,559	2 522Western Ontario	2,846	751Manitoba	4,173	1,183Saskatchewan	2.837	936Alberta	3.673	972British Columbia	5,410	1 333New Brunswick	1,268	398


Mr. MANION:: Does the second item refer to the militia pensions?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, the second figure refers to pensions which have been declared permanent by the Board of Pension Commissioners.


Robert James Manion: Do those figures include the dependents as well, or just the direct pensioners?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, they do not include dependents. The total number of people who receive benefits from the pensions, is very large. There are 146,373 people in Canada coming under the benefit of pensions. That includes disability pensioners, and their dependents, and dependent pensioners and their dependents.


Robert James Manion: I take it that there will be a good deal of discussion of the question of pensions, and I think it will be rather difficult to keep separate the matters that refer to pensions and to Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment work. In other words there are cases which, if they were admitted to treatment under the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment for disabilities at the front, would, generally speaking, be eligible for pensions. Therefore, there may be some difficulty in separating them. I know that the few remarks I am going to make a little later on will probably combine them. Has the minister any objection to a certain amount of intermingling of these estimates? I suppose what is said in this discussion will not be repeated on the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment estimates. It is very difficult to keep them separate. I make this statement in order to allow the chairman to take a lenient view of it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: At the time I had the honour to submit to the House the estimate in connection with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment I gave a statement of the number of soldiers under treatment. When a soldier is in the hospital his pension is paid to him just the same, and the amount is made up to the amount he would receive if he received full pay and allowance. The amounts I have mentioned refer only to pensions which are awarded by the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada. This amount has no reference whatever to the treatment of patients, or the maintenance of hospitals, or the examination of pensioners, or the examination of soldiers who desire to receive treatment, it simply covers the amount of money awarded to pensioners in Canada, and nothing else.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I wish to say a few words in connection with the pensions matter, as the people of my constituency are particularly interested in this work. The Pensions Act has been administered now for a number of years, and we have had an opportunity of discovering a good many flaws in the administration. I do not know that anyone in particular is to blame, but the spirit of the act, I think, has not been carried out in the way that was intended when it was passed. It has been unsatisfactory, not only to those that are directly affected by the working of the act, but also to the public who from one end of Canada to the other, are highly desirous to render the fullest possible service and full justice particularly to those men who went overseas and so nobly fought the battle for this country. We can never hope to compensate them fully for what they have done for us. But we should make every effort possible, to the extent even of our last dollar, to do justice to those men, and not only to see that they are paid proper pensions for their disabilities, but, in addition to that, to aim to restore to them their usefulness, and in that way add to their peace of mind. It is complained by these men that the Pension Act is inconsistent in some ways. In some cases it is said the pensions are entirely inadequate when the disability is taken into consideration. Then again it is complained that in the case of, say, two men affected almost in the same way and to the same extent with regard to their ability to earn a living, one man is paid a much higher pension than the other. It has been claimed also that a man who has had severe head injuries, suffering from extreme nervousness, unable to concentrate his mind on his work, suffering from headaches and dizziness, and unable on that account to hold any position.
Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions

is given a pension of $5 per month. It is said that one of the principal sufferers is the man who carried on overseas, the man who, though affected with sickness, probably suffering to a certain extent from gas or other causes, still persisted in carrying on his work, with the result that when he arrived on this side, and began to really suffer from the effects of the war, he was unable to show any history of having been under treatment on the other side. Anyone looking at the question from an ordinary business standpoint and under ordinary business conditions, would accept that as evidence that this man suffered from a disability. But his case is turned down because he is unable to show documentary proof of what occurred. Many men, it is claimed, are suffering from an injustice in this country as a result. I will read just one or two cases referred to by certain men in Victoria who have made a careful study of the situation.
This is the case of a man who enlisted on August 10, 1914, and was a prisoner of war in Germany from April 24, 1915, to March, 1918, when he was sent to Holland. He arrived in England December 19, 1918. He had, of course, no medical history sheet. On his arrival in England his only anxiety was to get back to Canada, and for that purpose he declared himself fit. As a matter of fact, the man was greatly run down and had suffered in Germany from severe pains in the abdomen lasting several weeks at a time. He was discharged from the army on May 3, 1919, at Victoria. He suffered continually from gastric trouble. In February, 1922, he went to the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment; he was given treatment, but was refused pay and allowances. On applying for pension for which, of course, it should not have been necessary for him to apply, as he should have been examined for pension, he was told that he could not receive a pension because he could not supply medical evidence of his illness in Germany. Subsequently he filed a declaration by a Lieutenant McDowall, who was his officer and who was a prisoner with him in Germany, whose evidence substantiated his statement as to the nature of his illness while a prisoner. This evidence was refused, and he is not yet in receipt of a pension. He is now a physical wreck.
Here is another case of a private who enlisted in Victoria, June 1, 1916. He went to France December 1, 1916, and served twenty-seven months in the trenches. All the time he was not in good health, but he carried on. He was discharged December 19, 1919, as Al. He took up land under the Soldier Settlement

Board, but he broke down before going on to the land. He is married and as he says, he thanks God he has no children. He is in very straitened circumstances, and is in very poor health. He has applied to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment from time to time, but he has been refused any amelioration. On December 20, 1919, two months after his discharge, he was admitted to the Jubilee hospital, suffering from gastric ulcers and toxic poisoning, and was extremely ill. The doctor placed him on treatment with pay and allowances. Ottawa refused pay and allowances and subsequently even treatment. On February 10, 1922, after an interval of continuous suffering and treatment by private doctors, who all say that his condition is due to war service, he again applied to the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and the local doctor placed him again in hospital. During this hospital period the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment doctor had all his teeth removed save six, Dr. Arnold, Medical Director of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, directed that he should receive no pay and allowances, and pension also was refused by him. The treatment then continued. On October 18. 1922, the sub-unit office in Victoria asked the Vancouver office for a denture to supply the place of removed teeth. On October 28, 1922, Dr. Proctor, of Vancouver, Medical Director of the "J" Unit, refused to give any denture and ordered that all treatment must cease. The man was then placed in the charity ward, and he subsequently received treatment from the local doctors, out of charity. Here we have the fact of a gallant soldier who wished to cany on and not make a fuss, having his very gallantry used to his detriment by the Pension board, because he reported Al to get back to Canada. No Pension board ever examined this man. The case was entirely decided by doctors. The man is still suffering severely, but he is doing his best. Naturally enough he cannot compete in the labour market.
The third and last case I have is that of a widow whose first husband was a member of the 16th Battalion. He was killed in action and a pension was granted to his wife and one child. On December 19, 1916, this lady remarried a pay sergeant in the 50th Highlanders who, owing to bad sight, was not allowed to go to either England or France. By him she had one child. Whilst at Willows camp, Victoria, this sergeant contracted pneumonia, and subsequently contracted influenza, and he had to leave the service. Later on he contracted tuberculosis and died of tuberculosis in February, 1922. According to doctors' statements in Victoria, this showed a clear

Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions
case of continuity from the tuberculosis to the pneumonia contracted on service. Nevertheless she was refused a pension because she cannot produce evidence that her husband contracted tuberculosis whilst on service, or any evidence of the nature or possible cause of the disability which led to his death. This information should have been on the man's military papers and medical history sheet; but no such documents in his case can be found, and the evidence goes to show that they were probably burnt up in the fire which took place at the Work Point barracks. The widow is at present living on charity, with her two children. She still draws a small pension for the first child.
These are cases, not only of lives lost, but of lives ruined as the result of the war. If it was not the intention of the Pension Act to meet just such cases as I have cited, what did we pass that act through the House for? In my opinion, it was passed for the purpose of relieving just such cases as these, and in the administration of the act more elasticity will have to be given or great injustice will be done to men who deserve much better treatment. These complaints are coming in, not by ones or twos, but by hundreds, and I am informed that if the resolution proposed by the minister takes the form of legislation later on, no fewer than 10,000 cases on appeal will be presented for his decision. It is quite clear then that the 'act< under present 'conditions Ss not fulfilling its mission. The people have waited and asked for reform; they have been very patient; they have given a great deal of time for the carrying out of the administration of this act so as to enable little discrepancies to be overcome. But results have not been reassuring as might be expected, and consequently we find that the people in some sections now are getting very much excited over the condition of affairs. On June 29 last, a very representative mass meeting was held in Victoria, British Columbia. At that meeting the following bodies were represented: Liberal Association, Independent Order of Foresters, Trades and Labour Council, the Council of the municipality of Oak Bay, the Council of the municipality of Esquimalt, the Kumtuks Club, Gyro Club, Rotary Club, Kiwanis Club, Army and Navy Veterans, Women's Conservative Association, Grand Army of United Veterans, Salvation Army, Navy League, Chamber of Commerce, Conservative Association, Women's Canadian Club, Canadian Club, Young Mens Christian Association, Saanich Council, Tubercular Veterans Association and British
Campaigners. Among those present were the Bishop of Columbia, and Father Wood representing St. Andrews Cathedral. This meeting was also a very representative one of the principal citizens of Victoria, and at it the following resolution was passed by a unanimous standing vote:
Whereas the findings of the Royal Commission on Pensions constitute a grave indictment of the Pension board in their administration of the Pension board and shows that the members thereof are unfitted to fairly administer the act:
Resolved, that in the opinion of this meeting of representative public men and women of Victoria, the government forthwith take the necessary steps to remove the members of the Pension board from office:
And further, be it resolved that copies of this resolution be sent to the Premier, members of the Cabinet and members for British Columbia in the Senate and House of Commons.
This was a non-political gathering, and I am very well acquainted with a large number of those who were present on that occasion. The gentleman who acted as chairman is the editor of the Liberal newspaper in Victoria. The resolution was moved by the Lord Bishop of British Columbia and seconded by the secretary of the Trades and Labour Council. Since that time I have received a wire from the Canadian Club, the Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary, the Kiwanis and the Gyro Clubs, besides soldier organizations, which have all either endorsed the resolution or forwarded similar resolutions asking for reform This will indicate that the feeling is general throughout that section of Canada, and it clearly shows that there is a very urgent demand for immediate reform. The principal speaker of the evening on the occasion in question was Major Twigg, a soldier who had been overseas and a lawyer of considerable ability. He claimed that seventy-five per cent of the returned soldier cases in which applications were made for pensions never reached the board at all but were settled by doctors, and that in many cases, where fifty per cent disability had been recommended by doctors, only twenty per cent was allowed by the board. He declared that there was apparent an effort to practise economy at the expense of the men. I quote the following from a newspaper report of the meeting:
Mr. Twigg took up various phases of the pensions question. A woman whose husband died from cancer five minutes before the official end of the war, said he. would be given a pension by the Board; while one whose husband died five minutes after the hour set down would not. The pension board took the stand that the statute was there and had to be enforced, and asked whether he thought that the board was following out the intention of parliament in regard to the above-mentioned situation, the head of the board had said, "I think so."
Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions

Another quotation from the address of Major Twigg is as follows:
Mr. Twigg cited the case of a man gassed at Ypres. He had been a big husky chap before the war. Gassed, he had reported to the doctor that he could not stop coughing. The doctor said, "Everybody's coughing; carry on," and the man had carried on, no record being made on his medical history sheet. Bronchial pneumonia developed, and the man spent a long period in hospitals. Finally he asked for a pension. He was refused treatment, refused pay and allowances, and refused pensions because no mention of his being gassed had been made on the medical history sheet. The man was now dying because of the decision of the pension board, and the worry accompanying his efforts to care for his family. The men who carried on without running to the doctor every time anything was the matter with them were the ones who suffered in the matter of pensions. The men who always went to the doctor had medical history sheet evidence. Pension after pension had been refused because men had no evidence on their medical history sheet to prove that their disabilities had come from service.
Major Twigs also claimed that although the 1920 amendments were held by the board to refer to the permanent force, in reality they were manipulated to cover men who had been overseas. It was claimed that this was at the bottom of the agitation throughout Canada. Speaking of the proposed resolution Major Twigg reminded the audience that it was not so much that the law was at fault as that the administration was to blame. This criticism of the Pension board was dispassionately presented. And, as I have stated, I am acquainted with a great many of those who were at the meeting and know them to be leading citizens and not firebrands. Their one aim was to do justice to the returned soldiers. We must remember that the returned soldier did not stop to bargain with us when called upon to go overseas but gallantly joined the forces. He set aside all business or other arrangements, his hopes were all sidetracked, and he subordinated his ambition and his desires to the impulse to render service to his country. We feel therefore that these men, having left their dependents at home under these circumstances, should receive justice now at the hands of the country. In my opinion they are entitled to the very last dollar which it is reasonably within our ability to pay them. When a gathering of the kind I have described passes a drastic resolution such as I have read, it indicates how acute the conditions are and how necessary it is that immediate action should be taken.
I can quite understand the difficulties of a board of this character, who have a vast variety of cases presented to them and who naturally desire to keep within the law. But if they hftve not the power now, then they certainly should be given that power, to apply a

certain degree of elasticity to their administration of the act. In my opinion what is required is good judgment tempered with sympathy and mercy in all cases.
It is quite apparent from what I have quoted that the Pension Act is not achieving just exactly what we had expected, and the matter is too serious to be allowed to drift any longer. I am very glad indeed to note that the minister has presented to the House certain resolutions which promise to afford relief in the directions complained of; and so far as I can see, before the question has been debated, I think they should tend to make the situation very much better than it is now.
As regards1 the administration of the act, clearly it was the desire of the House representing the people of Canada, when that act was passed, to take care of just such cases as I have mentioned, and hundreds of others that have been sidetracked simply because they could not comply with some little technicality in the law. It would be far better to give the act a much broader interpretation, even at the expense possibly of overpaying some fellows who might be inclined to fake, than
4 p.m. by too great stringency to rob hundreds of men and their dependents of the pensions that are justly due them under the law as it stands now. We cannot be too merciful or too sympathetic or considerate in cases of this kind. As I have said before, these young men when they joined the colours to go overseas parted with their family connections and renounced the prospects that they had seen ahead of them. No doubt many of them had had a vision of that point of efficiency, after certain years of hard work, at which they would be able to establish themselves, to marry and settle down in homes of their own. Many of them have come back badly maimed, some physically, others mentally, with the result that they find themselves unable to make a living and with all their hopes for a, bright and happy future entirely gone by the board. These cases should receive the most careful attention, and I am sure it is the wish of the Canadian people from one end of the country to the other to render them justice in the fullest possible measure.


Mr. ROBICHAUD (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, if there is an instance where the distribution of the public funds should be carried out with the utmost fairness, it is certainly when the question arises of granting to those disabled in the Great War a pecuniary help in compensation for the sacrifices they made for civilization. Ever since my

Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions
Difficulties in interpretation have arisen election to this House, numerous claims have been submitted to me by the dependents of the heroes who gave up their lives on the battlefields, and by those who have come to end their days in this country, burdened with infirmities due to wounds received in the war. Many have given me to understand that their cases had not been taken up by the Commission in charge of the distribution of these public funds. I have here the claim of a mother of a family from the County of Gloucester, whose son, her only support, lost his life on the battlefields. After making inquiries, the Secretary of the Commission on Pensions, informed me that the case of Mrs. Albert-that is her name-had not reached the Commission. In the second para-praph of this letter, which is signed by Mr. Davis, we come across the following lines:
No ap.plication for pension was filed on behalf of Mrs. Albert prior to your 'letter of the 10th of March last. Immediately that was received the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment yvas requested to obtain a properly completed application to investigate and report upon the case. This request is dated March 14th.
You may judge, Mr. Chairman, by this communication received from the Secretary of the Commission, that the full responsibility and care devolve upon the soldiers' dependents to acquaint the Commission of their rights.
It seems to me that in the remote parts of the country, as for instance in the back parishes of my county, these dependents should receive the necessary information so as to facilitate the task of placing their claims before the Commission.
In another instance, a farmer of my county, a Mr. Comeau, belonging to the parish of Petit Rocher is liable to lose his farm, which is already heavily mortgaged. An official came to him and made him sign a declaration that the crop on his farm was sufficient for the support of his family and that moreover he had, each year, a net balance of $300. When I made inquiries in regard to the matter, I was able to ascertain that instead of a net balance of $300 per year, this farmer had only sold $300 worth of products during the year. He had to meet from the above income rather heavy taxes as well as the interest on his mortgage. He is advancing in age, his health is on the decline and he will soon become a public charge unless help is extended to him. Now, how does it happen that these farmers, these heads of families having given what is most precious to them, their sons, in defence of this country, should be required to sign documents void of truth? I have made inquiries on the subject, and if I am well
informed, it appears that these good people are at the mercy of these investigators and are not in a position to understand the purport of the statement which is required of them. That is why I have requested from the hon. minister, and I again make this request from my seat, that a French-speaking official, be sent into my county so as to make an inquiry into each case and thus do what is right towards those whose sacrifice was great in the war.
The correspondence received on the subject is very voluminous. I might read it out and give the Committee an idea of the different claims that I have received, however, I hope this will not be necessary, and that with the hon. minister's help and the commissioners' good will, the demands of ex-service men, having taken part in the Great War or their dependents will be taken under consideration and that justice will be dealt out to them. I strongly insist that each interested person should receive the necessary forms and instructions so as to enable him to put in his claims. It seems to me unfair to insert in the statutes of our country laws governing the disabled in the Great War and to force upon these good people the burden of putting into practice the different regulations enacted in their favour by the Dominion government. If for example, circular letters were addressed to each of these soldiers or their dependents, explaining or giving a synopsis of the act, it would help in making the administration of the act easier. I trust that this suggestion will be taken into serious consideration and that the disabled in the Great War not only from my county but from all the counties of Canada will be thoroughly informed on this matter and that in future we may witness a little more fairness in the distribution of the public funds.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Mr. Chairman, the condition this year in respect to the consideration of the pensions estimates is very different from what it was last session. Since last session a royal commission has been appointed to look into the matter of pensions and soldiers' civil re-establishment; that commission has made two reports to the minister and we understand that the minister will present amendments to the Pension Act and the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Act bearing on the recommendations embodied in those reports. When the resolutions come before the committee these matters may more suitably be discussed; indeed, it is difficult to say anything regarding pensions without to some extent discussing the changes it is proposed to make by the amendments. But in the meantime I would like to say this

Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions
in connection with the Pension	Act.
These difficulties in interpretation have given rise to much dissatisfaction and trouble among returned men and disturbance in the country generally, and therefore I would suggest to the minister that one matter of outstanding importance in the amendments to the act that he will bring before us is that there be absolute clearness in their wording.	One
great advantage it seems to me in having these amendments brought down is that there is now a great hope of our obtaining a substantial settlement of the difficulties that have so disturbed the overseas men and the country in the matter of pensions and soldiers' civil re-establishment. I think that we have before us a distinct prospect of an opportunity to end all the principal difficulties. No amendment, of course, will ever ensure to us a complete and satisfactory solution of all the difficulties, but I do think there is an opportunity now of producing a condition of satisfaction and contentment among the returned men that we have not yet reached, and certainly one way will be to avoid any such difficulties as we have had in the past in interpreting the meaning of the act.
I might also say that so far as I have been able to learn the opinions of the returned men, should the subject of the recommendations of the royal commission be carried out by the minister in his resolution which he will bring before the House, it will secure a condition of satisfaction and contentment among the returned men.
While we are on the subject of pensions I would like to take this opportunity of referring to the difficulties which a number of applicants for pensions have in getting their cases fully investigated and their claims adequately met. I have been recently informed that through the efforts of the Great War Veterans' Association about six hundred cases have received substantial pension adjustment in the past twelve months. If that be the case, and I have been assured that it is, it shows that there is a difficulty in applicants securing a full investigation of their claims at the outset, and that it has required a further effort and assistance through an organization to have their claims fully and forcibly presented so that they have now obtained a better treatment than they were accorded at the outset. This number does not include minor adjustments that have been obtained, but as I said before, there are six hundred applicants who after their cases had been taken up through the organization of the Great War Veterans' Association have

received substantial pension adjustments. That is a point which I bring forward as one of those important in the future, so that we may enable those who claim pensions to obtain what is their due with a reasonable amount of facility. I have no doubt there are many claims presented of an exaggerated character, but clearly these are not of that character because they have been granted finally.
There is one particular case that I wish to bring to the attention of the committee which bears on the same subject. It is that of a nursing sister who in her early childhood had a severe injury to her hip, from which she duly recovered. She was passed as fit in Canada and again passed as fit in England, and proceeded to France. She was in the Expeditionary Force from the 12th April, 1915, to the 1st July, 1919. During this time she served in France for three years and nine months, an unusually long period for service in France, and rendered excellent service. While in France her hip became troublesome, but not sufficiently to interfere with her duties, and she carried on. On her return to Canada she served as a nurse in one of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment hospitals, but after a time her hip became still more troublesome and she was obliged to leave the service. The Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment decided that it was not advisable for her to continue further her duties, suffering as she was from the condition of her hip, having the view that it would increase further her disability. She received a vocational training in typewriting. She received also four per cent disability, for an aggravation of disability, which amounted to S100. You will observe that she was discharged from the hospital as unfit for duty. Her application for pension was declined. On one letter sent to the Pension board asking for pension was a marginal note from one of the medical advisers stating:
This lady was in charge of the surgical ward of which I was the medical officer in charge in the fall of 1915, and to my personal knowledge had an obvious disability. (Difficulty in walking.)
You will observe that the term "obvious disability" occurs in the act. It is one of those conditions which preclude one from obtaining a pension; that is, if anyone goes to France suffering from an obvious disability, that is the bar against receiving a pension. Now this statement is made on the margin of her letter, and I cannot help thinking that that is a bar against receiving a pension.

Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions
of that kind. It is a very important statement in the records of this case, and I think it might well have been a formal statement of evidence. However, there were two interpretations which might be put upon it:	One
was that the medical officer had seen the sister with a disability, and that it had occurred during service in France, and therefore that	it was evidence in
favour of her getting a pension. The other was, that it was an obvious disability which she brought with her to France, and therefore precluded her from pension. Apparently the latter view was the one taken. I would submit that here is a case where evidence of such a character was put on the file without any indication being given to the applicant.-the applicant knew nothing about it. The Board of Pension Commissioners do not write to the claimant stating "Here is a statement, do you wish to submit further evidence of your condition on arrival in France." That had not been done. In other words in this case the nursing sister has not had the opportunity of meeting evidence of the character referred to, if she were in a position to do so. As a matter of fact she can produce medical certificates showing that she was fit when she proceeded to France. I quote that as an instance where, I think, the case has not received full investigation. It is also an illustration of the necessity of informing the applicant for a a pension when additional facts are forthcoming so that the applicant can take proper action in the matter if he or she is in a position to do so. At the present moment I do not propose saying anything further on the question of pensions beyond this: I think it is clear that in the amendments which the House will adopt later on, we should provide that claims for pensions should be thoroughly investigated and carefully looked into for the protection of the claimants, as well as for the protection of the country.


Pius Michaud: Mr. Chairman, I wish to add a few remarks to those just made by my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud). On different occasions we have had to complain of the employees or agents sent by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment to our purely Acadian centres, in parts where English is not understood, and the good people of these counties found difficulty in submitting their cases to those agents. I trust that the hon. minister will take under consideration our requests and that in the future we shall have in that part of the country agents who at least understand
the French language. With reference to pensions, many cases were referred to in this House. Among those I have here, there is one which I especially wish to submit to you. It is the case of Mr. Ferguson, of the town of Campbellton, who is now blind and unable to earn his living.. He has to support his wife and receives no help whatsoever, except from one of his daughters, who is soon to be married. Mr. Ferguson is really in need of his country's help. His son, the only child who could have supported him, died on the battlefields. I would therefore ask the minister to consider again this case, for I have already had the opportunity of submitting it to the commission on two different occasions. I hope that the minister will grant my request and that we shall obtain fair play in this particular case.


Robert James Manion: At this late date in the session, and at this stage of the proceedings, I do not wish to take up very much of the time of the House. Nevertheless, there are a few remarks that I wish to make in regard to pensions which I think are appropriate upon this occasion. It is a very difficult position to be in to discuss the workings of the Board of Pension Commissioners, for the reason that one who looks at the affairs of the country-at the tens of thousands of people who are receiving pensions, and at the millions of dollars which are annually being spent upon pensions-must feel that the task of the pension commissioners is a very difficult one. I do not wish in any way, under those circumstances, to be in the least unfair to the Pension board. I wish to preface my remarks by recognizing that they have a very difficult position, that they often have brought before them unfair and unreasonable demands and requests which are difficult to give effect to and which if given effect to on many occasions the commissioners would feel that they were not doing justice by the country. At the same time, I have had many dealings with the Board of Pension Commisioners in the past year, and in other years, and-speaking entirely for myself and not on behalf of any organization- at times it has appeared to me that the commisisoners have shown a little too great a desire for efficiency, and, perhaps, too little sympathy toward the cases coming before them. Bv sympathy I do not mean a foolish sentimentality, but that spirit of sympathy which is really meant to be inherent in the Pension Act. In other words, it has appeared to me sometimes that there is too much of an inclination on the part of the board and its officers to live up to the letter,
Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions

rather than the spirit of the law. In saying that I wish to point out that there is no personal gain for the commissioners in refusing a pension to any man. No doubt, as is mentioned in the report of the royal commission, the pension commissioners could make themselves very popular to-day among the returned soldiers by granting pensions without proper consideration. At the same time they have appeared to me at times to be a little too strict; and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is better for them to eri on the side of leniency than that injustices should at any time be dons to the returned men. I submit, Sir, it is better, to my mind, that ten people should get pensions that do not deserve them, or that ten people should get treatment in the hospitals who do not deserve that treatment, than that one just case should be refused. I submit, in support of my statement as to a lack of sympathy-I do not say an entire lack of sympathy by any means, but at times there has been a certain lack of sympathy-the report of the royal commission. Again and again in this report the commissioners point out very much the very same conclusion as I myself arrived at before I ever read the report. For example at page 128-I do not wish to quote the statement itself because I do not desire to extend my remarks- they point out that very fact-that at times the Pension board has been " unsympathetic in its attitude." That is a synopsis of what they say; at different places in the report they point that out. I believe what the people of this country want is fairness towards the men, and after fairness has been carried out in every possible way then they want economy, but not till then. My hon friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Mac-Laren) pointed out the fact that the changed decisions proved very often that the case had not been properly considered by the board. I had a case recently where the decision was changed. The applicant in that case was a British Columbia man and his brother was a friend of mine. For that reason I took up the case but left it entirely with the Board of Pension Commissioners. I gave the board nothing but the man's own statement and the statements of medical men who had seen him. The board turned the applicant down repeatedly, but frankly his representations were so persistent, that at last I got to the stage where I threw his letters in the wastepaper basket. I heard about the case the other day. I received notice from the Board of Pension Commissioners, after I had excused them to 
him to the best of my ability, that they had granted him a pension. Well, there is something wrong, it seems to me, in a case like that, when they took so long to come to a decision. I do not know what it is, but it would appear to me that there was an error made in that case, which put me in a wrong light with the man, because I did not argue the case from any personal knowledge which I occasionally do, on account of having had a medical training and meeting a good many returned men. In that case I did not use these arguments at all, because I did not know the case. But it must have been about two years after I took up the case that the decision was changed and he got a pension. That illustrates to me that there was something wrong in handling the case in the first place. Whose fault it was I do not know. I think that case should have been given a little more consideration earlier, and that it should not have been delayed for a period of pretty nearly two years.
I might refer to another feature in this report on pensions-and I am not fond of recriminating-that practically all the severe tightening of the reins which has taken place has occurred within the last year, and I say that because I well remember that during the last election the Prime Minister, particularly-and I regret that he is not in his seat when I say this-travelled around the country pointing out that if he came to power the returned men would receive better treatment than they had been receiving. As a matter of fact, according to this report, whatever tightening up of the reins has taken place has practically taken place within the last year. I have read of very many cases quoted by the Ralston report in which that statement is borne out, but I do not wish to take up time now in reading them.
I will illustrate my other remarks by reference to another ease, though in a sense it deals more with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment than the Department of Pensions. I took the case up about a year ago with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. The name of the man was Charles McAvella. He had lived in my rdiing, but not in my city. He Came to me, and after looking over the man and listening to his history, I ascertained that he had a severe disease of the bone of the leg, what is called in medical parlance osteomyelitis He had been injured while in uniform, serving in Port Arthur. He was in the hospital a couple of weeks, got better, went overseas, served a couple of years, and was discharged

Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions
as fit; and then a year later the disease broke out. He used up all the money he had, something like $2,500, in medical attendance in Winnipeg and other places. He was a married man and a fine type of fellow. He was finally up against it and he asked help from the department, and was refused on the ground-and it was very fair ground in a general way, as a large percentage of the reasoning was in favour of their decision- that there was no connection between thy original injury which had taken place four or five years before and the present condition, which made him a permanent cripple-and he will be a cripple the rest of his life, even if he does not lose his leg. I was approached by some of his friends and I took up the matter with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and in my opinion there was a marked possibility of connection between the original injury and the present condition. I wrote to the board and they replied to me that they had already made a decision, they had other medical opinion stating that his condition was not due to the injury. I had a good deal of sympathy with him, because I felt there was a fair chance that bis condition was due to the injury. I took him before a well-known medical man, Dr. M. B. Dean, who has been practising in my city twenty years, and he wrote out an opinion taking absolutely the same attitude as I have taken. In spite of that, the treatment was refused. I gave up the fight, but recently the Port Arthur Great War Veterans' Association wrote me and told me this man was in the hospital, depending absolutely on charity, and they thought the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment should reconsider its decision. I again took up the matter, and the minister possibly might remember, in the multitude of letters which he receives, that I wrote him in regard to it, and I have a couple of letters on file from him. The reason I mention this matter is because the minister made a statement based on the information given him by his officials which statement was wrong. The statement was to this effect: I find that all medical reports agree that his present disability could not reasonably be attributed to his service.
I do not blame the minister. He was simply reporting what his officers told him. That statement was made to the minister, despite the fact that I put on record the opinion of a very good medical man-to say nothing of my own opinion, although I do not know that I offered my opinion medically; I know that I sent in the report of Dr. M. B.
Dean, as a medical opinion. In spite of that the officers of the department advised the minister, as he informed me, that no medical opinion agreeing that his present disability could reasonably be attributed to his service had been received. That was an absolute misstatement of fact. I then wrote to two doctors in Toronto, and I have on file the opinion of one of them. I gave him the facts of this case and when I mention his name I think all hon. members in this House will know of him, because he is probably the most outstanding surgeon in Canada. I refer to Herbert A. Bruce of Toronto. I told him the facts of the case, and I have his letter, a copy of which I shall send to the minister. He said:
Although the case you refer to evidently had no suppuration at the time of the original injury, I think one would be justified in considering that there is a very reasonable probability of the present osteomyelitis being due to the former injury.
I would consider Dr. Bruce's opinion a better opinion than that of any man in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment; I would consider it a better opinion than that of any doctor or adviser on the pension board-certainly as good anyway. I think I am safe in saying that. He was for many years professor of surgery in the University of Toronto, and he has not only a national but an international reputation. The minister might ask me why I did not send the letter to him. The reason I did not send it is that at the bottom of the letter he points out-and very courteously too-
I intend to discuss the case with Dr. Arnold shortly.
We will go a long way to meet your views.
I was waiting for a further reply. I might well have sent it across to the minister, but I thought it was a good document to illustrate my contention that at times the Board of Pension Commissioners and the officers of the Department of Soldiers' Re-establishment live up a little too much to the letter of the law;-I am endeavouring to be as moderate in my language as I possibly can, because I consider they have a difficult position, and I do not wish to make it more difficult. I know they have a very hard row to hoe, and I do not wish to make it any harder or to put this country in for millions of unnecessary expense. But I believe that in many cases the Board of Pension Commissioners and the officers of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment could give treatment or pension at not very great increase in cost to the people of the country, and give better satisfaction than has been given in cases such as the one I have mentioned. I make this statement in the House because
Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions

I wish to impress these facts not only upon the minister, but upon the commissioners and other officers in the fairest way I possibly can, and yet I wish to impress them strongly enough, so that possibly they may have some effect in bringing about a great deal more satisfaction than has been evidenced by some of the complaints made by the Great War Veterans' Associations and the various soldier organizations. I am doing it with that object entirely and no other.
I wish to offer two other suggestions before I close, and I make these suggestions because the minister will present shortly recommendations of change in the Pension Act. I offer two suggestions which have been put up to me by a returned officer, which, I think, are very good suggestions, and which I think might possibly be dealt with by the minister when bringing in his amendments to the Pension Act.
He pointed out that if the widow of a man who was killed at the front is receiving a pension and she marries again, her pension automatically ceases. That is all right. He says: "Supposing her second husband dies within a reasonable time, she does not get a pension again," and he points out that in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, which is on the statute books to-day, even in such a case as that a woman on application would have an opportunity of being replaced on the pension list. I have thought the matter over, and I can see no real argument against the same condition being applied to the Pension Act in the case of the widow of the man who has served overseas. This would appear to me to be a just request. He quotes the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, section 56, subsection 2, and I will quote it:
If the widow remarries, her pension shall be suspended from the day following that of her remarriage. If in the event of her again becoming a widow her pension may be restored if she is otherwise qualified.
I quote that for the information of the minister. That is a suggestion that should, at least, receive consideration.
The other case, which to my mind is more unjust, I have taken up in this House before. It is the case of a woman who lived with her husband, a returned man, *who is seriously injured, and who is receiving a pension because of his injuries, or she and her family are receiving pensions because of his injuries. He for some reason-let us suppose it is because he gets into trouble with (the police-leaves the country. He does not dare to come back, or for some reason he does not come back. He deserts her; no matter what the reason may be; he

leaves her at any rate. Because he does not return at the end of six months and appear before the medical board to be examined, her pension and that of her children are cut off, the idea being that since the man does not return,-it is not a permanent pension, according to the expression used by the minister and therefore it is cut off. I believe some method must be worked out to do justice to women and children who are placed in that situation. I am sure it is not the desire of anybody in this country that the wife and children of a man who served overseas and who was seriously injured over there should suffer, if we can possibly prevent that, even at a great deal of expense to this country. I want to lay that case before the minister in order that he and his officials, when he brings in these amendments, may consider the possibility of bringing in some amendment to cover such a case as that.
Those are all the suggestions I have at the present moment. I did not mean to speak quite so long; but I have laid the facts before the minister because they are of great importance, and I hope they will be of some benefit to him and his commissioners and to the men who went overseas and their dependents.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: As representing a constituency in which there are resident a very large number of returned men, I should like simply to endorse what has been just said by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). It seems to me that we should have the most generous treatment possible as regards the returned men. It is not necessary to go into the recommendations of the pension commission. The returned men feel very strongly on this matter, and I think they have just ground for feeling that their cases have often not received from the present board the consideration that is due to them. Just as illustrating the feeling of the returned men across the country, I should like to read a resolution which was passed by the Manitoba Provincial Executive of the Great War Veterans on May 12, 1923:
This command views with great dismay and surprise the action of the Board of Pension Commissioners with reference to the report of the first part of the investigation into pensions made by the Royal Commission on the charges made by the Great War Veterans' Association. In view of the conduct and attitude of the board, indicating that it does not intend to carry out the administrative recommendations of the Royal Commission and in view of the previous mental attitude of the board, which shows, combined with its present conduct, that it is unfitted to administer the Pension Act,

Supply^-S.C.R.-Pensions
Therefore be it resolved that the government ask for the resignation of the whole board, including the secretary, and if the resignation is not received that the government remove the board and secretary by statutory action.
I read that simply to place before the committee what seems to be the considered opinion of a very important section of the returned men. Unless the Pension board can in some way obtain another ideal of their duty, as the last speaker has said, can, perhaps, not so much emphasize the exact letter of the law as rather to endeavour to give expression to the spirit of the Canadian people in dealing with these returned men, I do not know *whether they are the men to administer even the amendments which we hope will be forthcoming in the near future. We are a little bit at a loss at this time in not having the recommendations of the minister before us. When those come, I hope they will be found to make such changes in the act as to leave no doubt as to its interpretation, and that this may be along the line of more generous treatment to those men.


Mr. LADNER:: The question before the committee is, perhaps, one of the most important matters which could engage our attention this session. It is important because it relates to a time when very strong and passionate emotions were aroused during the war, and appeals, such as we have not listened to for many years, were made to the manhood of Canada to respond to the call of their country and to place their all on the altar of this Dominion and of this Empire. Almost nine years have passed by since the commencement of that terrible conflict; five years have passed since the war has been concluded, and to-day we are still dealing with many of the pension cases, doubtful cases which, either by the administration of the Pension board or by the enactments of parliament, are found to be suffering an injustice. We are now, of course, considering pension estimates. There will come a time very shortly when the minister brings down his bill in amendment to the Pension Act, when we can discuss the concrete proposals for remedying the injustices and for arranging to adjust the many cases which have come before every member of this House.
In my observations of proceedings in this House during the past two years, it has seemed to me that on matters of this kind, a little too much apathy and a little too much reluctance has been shown by the members in taking the initiative as leaders of public thought in this country, and that soldiers' organizations and the public at large instead . have been obliged to stir up the members of
237	-
this House to bring about remedies and to force the appointment of a royal commission. Various reasons may be given for that. A parliamentary committee sat last year, and it my recollection is correct, all the recommendations of that committee were not carried out, although many should have been carried out at that time. What is the result? The result to-day-and it is a fact which no hon. member will deny-is that from Vancouver 'to Halifax there is dissatisfaction
on this	question	of	pensions,	on	theadministration of	the	act,	and	on	thestate of	the	law	as	we	find	it.
I do not think there is any hon. member in this House who will deny that statement: we are all receiving letters and resolutions of one kind and another advocating extreme measures to remedy the situation. What has been responsible for this dissatisfaction? In my judgment, the impression has got abroad -and that there is some truth in it, I do not doubt-that this dissatisfaction is due to a lack of sympathy on the part of the Board of Pension Commissioners. And I make that statement, not rashly, but after having had personal dealings with the board. I do not suggest that they have not acted conscientiously and in the light of their best judgment, but the results show that many cases are decided in which the element of sympathy is absolutely lacking. Then the charge is made that the administration of the act has been at fault, or that unsound procedure has been followed; and I believe that the Ralston commission, as there is ample evidence to show, fairly well upholds these contentions.
There is also an objection to the law as originally framed. When the act was passed there was established a principle that practically amounted to a contract between the soldier body of the country and the country itself, but the law has been so changed as to deprive many men or their dependents of the pensions they should otherwise receive. Last year it was my good fortune to have the opportunity of participating in the debates in this House when pension matters were under consideration. At that time, as will be seen at page 3453 of Hansard, I suggested to the House in committee certain specific amendments dealing with the very difficulties with' which this House is faced today. My amendments related to section 11 and section 25, subsection 3. I sought to induce the House to re-establish the insurance principle so that one part of our soldier body would not be awarded pensions on one principle while another section of that body were

Supply-S.C .R.-Pensions

given pensions on a different principle but one much less advantageous. In the reports a difference is made between what is known as the insurance principle and the "due to service" principle. So that after September 20 you find a line of demarcation. Before that day men and their dependents had a much greater opportunity of getting pensions than they have had thereafter. Last year, therefore, I asked the House and the government to accept the insurance principle, and to that end I moved an amendment to section 11 for the purpose of re-establishing the law as it was in 1919. Unfortunately, however neither the government nor the House saw fit to accept that amendment. The Ralston commission, after extensive investigation, has now brought down its report favouring the re-establishment of the insurance principle. My purpose in dwelling on the subject to-day is to urge upon the government and the minister not only the expediency, but the wisdom and justice-indeed, the sacred duty of themselves and of parliament-to adopt an amendment at this session to bring about this end.
I wish to call the attention of the minister to the fact that, in accordance with the report of last year, section 33, subsection 1, was amended in order to remedy an unfortunate evil which then existed. But the Senate rejected the amendment. This section as it stands to-day apparently prevents the payment of pensions to widows who were married subsequently to the appearance of disability causing death. The Board of Pension Commissioners has taken the stand that no latitude in the interpretation of the section is permissible. I would point out, however, that provision could reasonably be made in some instances where disability was incurred during service but did not become apparent until after marriage. I would also remind the House that a parliamentary committee during the session of 1922 recommended to the House a very satisfactory amendment to the section. The report of the committee was adopted and an amending bill to that end was passed in the latter part of the session. But the amendment was deleted in the Senate and the bill was referred back to the House and adopted in the form amended in the other Chamber. I trust that the minister on this occasion will remedy that situation.
I would call to the attention of the government their own obligation in connection with these different amendments and in relation to recommendations that have been embodied in the Ralston report. Prior to the election of 1921 the Great War Veterans' Association LMr. Ladner ]
submitted to the various leaders of the parties engaged in that contest specific questions which those gentlemen were asked to answer in order that the great soldier body might know to what extent the leaders and their respective parties would go if re-
5 p.m. turned to power. At that time the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was one of those who received these questions.' He made a general answer in which he gave expression to a statement the thought and sentiment of which finds great favour with me, and which I think creates an obligation on the part of the government that I trust they will realize and discharge at this session. Speaking at Cobalt on November 20. 1921, the right hon. gentleman is reported to have said:
" Our duty to the returned men, their dependents, and the dependents of those who have not come back, is clear," Mr. King stated. "It is a demand that we treat their requests with generosity, which is more than mere justice. To the men who sacrificed their all in the fight for. freedom we owe all the freedom we have to-day; though we default the interest on the national debt (which would mean national bankruptcy), we cannot afford to let one of our returned men or their dependents suffer."
That is a very fine and noble sentiment. But sentiment is not very useful to men and women in this country who are to-day walking the streets without the wherewithal to provide the necessities of life. The responsibility for improving this situation actually rests upon the government to-day, in view of the statement I have just quoted, and I suggest to the government and to the minister that, when the amendments to the Pensions Act are brought down, they remember their sacred pledge given on that occasion, and take advantage of the recommendations which have been made after investigation in the Ralston report. I trust that we may have amendments to the act which will do justice to the many cases, knowledge of which every member of the House has in his possession, which have not been provided for either because of some technicality in the law, or of faulty procedure in the administration of the act, or of some inefficiency in the department. I am not of course for a moment making any general charge in that regard. But there are instances where cases have been decided differently on the same set of facts.
I wish to take advantage of this occasion to offer to the minister some suggestions that have been made to me by different organizations. The first is that the pensions of orphans be increased from S30 to $45 per month. A number of organizations believe that increase is necessary, and I personally

Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions
think the additional expenditure involved would not be so serious as to weigh against the advantages which would accrue to the children by the increase. Another matter- I am citing these because they are not ordinarily reviewed in the discussion of this question-is this:	It is urged that provision
be made to meet the cost of burial of widows, widowed mothers and pensioned children. These requests have been submitted to the department, and I wish to urge upon the government the justice of accepting them; I know the minister is very sympathetic and will look into them carefully. Another question which can properly be considered here is one which was dealt with by the special committee on pensions last session, namely, the helplessness allowance for soldiers who have become totally blinded as the result of service overseas. These men, in addition to their pension, receive a helplessness allowance. Those who are able to go out upon the streets are in need of a guide. The practise of the department is to allow these men, I think, S25 a month or a little more, which is not sufficient to provide that necessary assistance, and the result is that when these men walk upon the streets-I know of concrete cases in Vancouver, they fall over wheelbarrows, trip over ropes and excavations where the streets are being repaired, and in general suffer many inconveniences and difficulties through their disabilities. Their complaint is best set out in the words of one of the men, Mr. A. Baron Taylor, in a letter addressed to myself, to which communications from some of these organizations are attached. He says:
I certainly think that we are entitled to at least two-thirds of the maximum-
The maximum is $75 a month.
-for it is acknowledged that blindness is the most pitiable of war disabilities, yet we receive less than one-half the maximum allowance, despite the fact that each may be blessed with trench foot pains or shattered nerves. I trust that I have made the situation clear on this point.
Another thing that vitally affects some of us is the fact that our wives, on becoming widows, receive no pension because of marrying after the disability was incurred. This, to me, is a gross insult to both parties concerned, for it immediately puts the sacred marriage on a commercial base and has the tendency to class the wife as a prostitute. Will you kindly remember these points when the debate reopens.
I consider it my duty to make a plea on behalf of these men who are suffering from this disability and for whom the helplessness allowance is not sufficient to provide the assistance they so much need.


Mr. POWER:: Is it not a fact that the
helplessness allowance is $750 a year?
237J


Leon Johnson Ladner: That is the maximum,
given to a man, for example, who is blind and who has both arms off ot both legs off. That is a case where an attendant is required all the time, at the man's side; but when a blinded man is able to walk out upon the streets he gets only a portion of that allowance. My contention is that the purpose is to provide the necessary help for a blinded man to enable him to get along the street. I do not think the allowance should be cut in two simply bceause a man is able to walk outside instead of being always fed from a tray, and so on; the idea is to enable him to get along the street in comparative safety.


Charles Gavan Power: Has a certain scale been
established-so much for a walking patient and so much for a patient confined to the house?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes, they draw distinctions between certain classes of patients.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does my hon. friend not
think that a pensioner who receives $900 a year and besides that a helplessness allowance of $750 is able to provide someone to attend upon him in the house and accompany him when he goes out in the street?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Quite so, but that is not
the point of my contention.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not catch the hon.
gentleman's point, then.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The blinded man who is
able to walk along the street does not receive the full helplessness allowance of $750.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He may receive it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The information I have
is that he receives about $25 a month or slightly more. This man says in his letter that he wants to get a least two-thirds of the maximum. He ought to know-he is one of them.


Charles Gavan Power: What is his disability?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Total blindness; and he
is connected with some organization. He
says:
I certainly think that we are entitled to at least two-thirds of the maximum.
And so on. As I say, I understand they get about $25 a month.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The helplessness allowance is left to the discretion of the Board of Pension Commissioners. As my hon. friend knows, it may be not less than $250 a year and not more than $750. It is for the board to judge what allowance should be awarded
Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions

to a man who is helpless on account of blindness. I understand they must award the maximum in the case of a man receiving the full pension of $75 a month, or $900 a year; that would bean additional $750 a year to enable him to have assistance in the house as well as outside. We have married men working in the department for $750 a year. I am sure it is possible for a full pensioner to secure the services that he requires when he receives the amounts I have stated, particularly when it is a case of not preparing his meals but serving them and accompanying him on the street. I may say that the regulations of the department provide for free transportation to totally blinded soldiers twice or three times a year. I am only stating the condition as it is; of course, my hon. friend may be able to suggest better treatment.


Leon Johnson Ladner: This matter was thoroughly discussed before the special committee of last year: I was not on the committee but I was present, and followed these points closely. The difficulty is that the board do exercise their judgment, but they exercise it on this basis: They say that if a man is totally blind and is not, for instance, able to look after himself at all-cannot get his food for himself but has to sit in a chair and have an attendant constantly waiting upon him- the disability is more severe than that of a blinded man who can walk outside and proceed along the street. They maintain that a man who can walk around the street, even though totally blind, should not receive the maximum allowance. Now, that is an argument; it is logical; it is a lawyer's argument. And the trouble with the Pension board is that they have carried logic and the law so far into their administration that injustices have resulted and do result. My suggestion is that what they should regard is not this relationship between one man who is totally incapacitated and another man who can walk about the streets, but the need that the man has in order to accomplish the purpose of his activities. For example in the one case he requires help to feed him. He has to sit down and he requires someone to look after him, and they pay him $75 a month. In the other case the man should have the right to walk about the streets even if it is necessary to pay two-thirds of the allowance or $50 a month as they say here, to get a child or somebody to guide him by the hand. The main consideration of the Pension board in that case should be the taking of the man on to the streets, and if they have to pay $50 a month to get someone to do it they should
IMt. Beland.]
pay it. In other words they have figured out the relationship between the two on the wrong principle. If the Pension board say that that is the legal interpretation, and they must persist in doing it and will not do it in any other way-and I have found them uncommonly stubborn in matters of that kind -what is the remedy? The responsibility is on the government and parliament to say: If you will administer the law that way, we will have to change our laws so that you will administer them in some other way. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the minister to-day because I certainly intend to deal with it later at another opportunity.
I would like before taking my seat to refer to one or two actual cases. A number of men have spoken of such cases, and it is a splendid way to illustrate the operation of the act. All of us have a great many of these cases. In this particular case I am not specially attaching any blame to the minister of the department, but I am attaching blame to the Pension board, and its administration, to its lack of sympathy. The facts show the need of certain amendments in the law. I have one case which I might cite by way of an example largely because the applicant is resident in Ottawa and the evidence was available in Ottawa. It is the case of Mrs. Florence G. White, whose husband died of malignant cancer at Christie Street hospital in Toronto, in July, 1921. It was a case of carcinoma, I believe the doctors call it. This man served overseas. He was a married man with a family. He went overseas and in June or July of 1918 he was shot down while flying over the German lines. In falling he was hurt somewhat. He was made a prisoner in Germany and I believe he had to eat many things there which in a number of other cases have been known to cause cancer. As a result of his experiences he came back to Canada and about the time of his discharge he returned to his position in the Marine department in this city. He came back to Canada in June, 1919, was discharged July 16, and returned to the Marine department August 6. At the time of his return to Canada he informed a number of people, responsible people whose word is worth something, that he was constantly suffering pain in the region of his abdomen where the cancer developed, and from a pull of the leg when he was going upstairs. The doctors of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment diagnosed it as appendicitis and treated this case of malignant cancer as appendicitis. They took him to hospital, and finally he had to relinquish his position with the department. First of all, he had taken a few days off from

Supply-S.C.It.-Pensions
his job, informing a high official in the government that he was constantly suffering from this pain and would like to be released. All these facts were sworn to in affidavits and filed with the Pension board. This man went to St. Luke's hospital in June, 1920, and the doctors of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment operated on him and found that instead of appendicitis he had cancer. They had to get consent before a subsequent operation could be performed, and he was sewed up temporarily and was later on operated on again and finally died. That was, of course, a case of attributability due to the change in the pension law.


Henri Sévérin Béland: When did he die?


Leon Johnson Ladner: In July, 1921. We proved by a number of the very best witnesses you could possibly find all the facts that were relevant and were available to be proved, showing that the man suffered from pain, and the position, and everything absolutely dovetailed with the cancer pains which afterwards became more severe.	[DOT]


Charles Gavan Power: Was he discharged as fit or unfit?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not know the exact
category in which he was discharged. At any rate, I believe reference was made in one of the reports to the pains1. Of course, the pains might have been something else. After this the case was1 presented to the Board of Pension Commissioners, but unfortunately all the facts which a lawyer would know were relevant and pertinent to proving the case were not given to the Pension board. The matter was brought to my attention and I got affidavits and prepared a statement of the case and placed it before the board. I found that' the board refused to reconsider their position, and I also found out as a lawyer of some years' experience in my practice the real procedure that the Pension board carried out and the reason why a great number of injustices have been done in this country. You have on that board a lawyer, a doctor or two doctors, and somebody else. I laid the evidence before this body which exercises final judicial authority. I said: There are the facts for the plaintiff's case, here you have the facts for the department; now on what grounds do you refuse to reconsider this case? On one particular point on which three different people swore to a fact which bore directly upon the case, one of the commissioners said to me, "Why, Mr. Ladner, that is not so." I said: "How do you know it is not so?" He replied: "As a doctor I know that things like that practically never happen." He took the inference of his medical
mind to perform the duty of a judicial mind, with the result that he simply refused to listen to anything in the way of these facts sworn to in the affidavits and said, "In my opinion this did not happen." It appears that carcinoma or cancer does not often happen from a blow but from some other cause, but it might easily have happened in Germany when he was a prisoner there. But the board refused to reconsider the case. I then took all the facts and a new statement of the case and placed it before the pension section of the parliamentary committee of last session. Some hon. members present will remember the case. We had quite a heated discussion. We had present Col. Thompson, Dr. Burgess, Mr. Paton and a number of other officials. The evidence was all gone over again, and I pointed out that the board were in fact exercising a judicial function and that they should carry out their duties in accordance with established principles of evidence, that they should not go by inference, guesswork or medical theories, but by the evidence before them, and on that score we had the evidence. The committee on pensions appreciated that point and came to the decision that the board was wrong and that it should reverse its finding and grant the pension. A communication was formally sent to them but the medical member of the board said "We have made up our minds on this case and we are going to stick to it, we will not change." Now, in my opinion, as a lawyer of some years standing and practice before the bar-having heard the members of the committee discuss this case, having seen the prepared evidence- we actually had the applicant, her mother, her son and another witness present before the committee to give verbal evidence and be subject to a cross-examination if desired-in my opinion the committee absolutely failed, and the Pension board absolutely failed, to cany out the fundamentals of judicial procedure; and in that respect I must commend the minister for suggesting in the resolution he has brought forward that something in the nature of appeal boards should be provided to which people such as this applicant can go, so that their whole life's work and interest shall not be finally determined by somebody who obstinately clings to his own view of the case. Take the case of a Chinaman in the matter of an ordinary contract or debt or the case of an ordinary vegetable man out West and there is a contract involved of, say, SI.50, why that man can go to the Supreme Court of Canada and there are at his disposal the finest trained judiciary of the country, and all the common law precedents,
372:
Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions

and he can have justice. But when a case goes before the Pension board it is pronounced upon by men some without legal training. They come to their conclusion and whatever reasons to the contrary are advanced those reasons are overborne and it is hopeless to do anything further for the applicants. In that respect I for one am frank to say that I would like to see a change in the law by which it would be possible to get justice done outside the Pension board as it is administered to-day.
In this case,:-the White case-what were the consequences? This lady is a widow with a child at school. She had had two serious operations. She was denied by the doctors the right of carrying on her occupation as a nurse, she had no other means of earning a livelihood, she had to take her son from school and put him to work and she herself had to earn whatever she could. The husband in this case gave his life for his country, and yet the son is denied the opportunity of getting the education which he otherwise might have got. So that in the administration and practices of the Pension board we not only have the actual consequences of a pension not being paid, but also the effects of that action upon the families concerned for a generation and perhaps two generations to come. Now, Mr. Chairman, there are other cases that I might cite but I will merely mention the names because the particulars are all on file. There is the case from Vancouver of Captain H. A. Langford in which all the particulars have been placed before the department. There is another case, that of E. N. Couch, living in South Vancouver, which is quite involved and which depends largely upon the question of attributability.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that the question of pensions is a matter which should engage the attention of every single member of this Hous'e. I do not believe that we as members have the right to feel any apathy with respect to it, and I hope that when the amendments to the Pension Act come down they will contain practically all of the recommendations that are embodied in the Ralston report, and that a means will be found of rectifying the injustices Which have been disclosed in the actual administration and in the procedure of the Pension board.


Mr. MILLAR:: I shall be very brief in my observations to the committee at this time, but at a later date when the amendments to the Pension Act are discussed I may have more to say. I suppose that Canada has been a little negligent of the welfare of her returned soldiers. In this respect history is only repeating itself. That seems to have
rMr. Ladner.]
been the case in all countries and after all wars. Nevertheless in comparison with othet countries and with other periods, I think Canada, perhaps, has a good record. Still, I believe there have been some cases of injustice, and perhaps that is to be expected
The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) has referred to the position of the Pension board. I can understand that in dealing with returned soldiers distributed all over Canada, and receiving reports from a great distance and from doctors whom the board does not know, and some of whom are very persistent in advancing claims on behalf of their patients, the board feel that they must be very firm in order to protect the country from being imposed upon. In the constituency I have the honour to represent there are no very large centres of population, and perhaps, that is the reason why very few specific charges against the board have reached me. Yet in a general way there have been several complaints, and i: would certaiply seem that there are a goodly number of men who have not been well treated. It seems rather sad too when such a spectacle as was witnessed by the people of my own town last week occurred. That was the sight of two returned men, each of whom had lost a leg, on their way at the present time from Calgary to Ottawa in order to lay their complaint before the proper officials there.
Reference has been made to the fact that during the last few years the reins have been somewhat tightened, but that, I think, is only to be expected. I do not think we can attribute the fact to the change of government. The same thing has occurred in connection with the Soldier Settlement board. Having been imposed upon in the early years of their history it is quite natural that the pendulum should have swung in the other direction and, perhaps, swung too far. Probably that is what has taken place in connection with the Pension board. I should like to say that I have received several telegrams in which the desire is expressed that the recommendations of the Ralston commission be put into effect. I think if I read a few words from one of these communications it will express what is conveyed in the others. I find in one telegram these words:
To get immediate action taken which will give effect to the findings of the Royal commission, as we have in this province a large number of urgent, necessitous cases affected thereby.
I only wish to say further in connection with the returned soldiers-particularly those who are maimed or crippled-that while it is

Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions
time that Canada practise every economy I do not think this is a direction in which it should be done. I should like to see the most generous treatment towards these men- in fact the treatment should be very generous before I could demur in any way to the expenditure for this purpose.


Mr. MacKELVIE:: This, perhaps may be the appropriate time to interject a remark or two of a slightly different tenor regarding the operations of the Pension board-and I may add the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment as well. Everybody's judgment, to be of any value in cases of this kind, must be based on observation; and while for the last three years I have had a very considerable number of cases to take before these two boards I am very much pleased indeed this afternopn to be able to state unreservedly to the House, that not only have I received from them the most courteous treatment and prompt consideration but my experience has been that they have leaned always towards a sympathetic interpretation of the law. I can only say what I have found myself. In the last week I had occasion to take up a case with the Pension board, and there was some doubt in my own mind as to how they should act. Greatly to my delight, and somewhat to my surprise, the matter was settled almost immediately. A telegram was despatched to my constituency conveying certain instructions, and the claims of the applicant were met and met very promptly.
I would hold up both hands for any change in the act which would give a more generous treatment, if possible, to our returned men, and I would support unreservedly any features of the Ralston report which have that end in view. I wish to say that none of the criticisms which have been levelled against the administration of the Pension board in my opinion is well grounded. This may not be a popular view to express; I know that a great many people take a different view. Many associations of soldiers seem to imagine that they are receiving entirely unsympathetic treatment. I can only judge by what I know, and I have not found that to be the case. The same remark applies to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. I have carried some appeals to that body to a successful conclusion and in a manner that gave me satisfaction. Most of my work in connection with the Soldier Settlement Board has been carried on through the secretary, Mr. Paton, and I have found him an efficient officer. He has been always most obliging, and has rendered me service auite equal to that which I
could reasonably expect from any government official of any department. I would like to see the act enlarged in any possible way that will give better and more generous treatment to those who so richly deserve it, but I do not like to have this discussion closed without saying a word in commendation of men whom I have found to be very efficient and courteous.


Mr. SHAW:: Numerous complaints which
have been forwarded to members of parliament during the course of the last two or three years must, I am sure, have been received with some sense of apprehension. I believe that it was for the purpose of securing finality in connection with pension problems that last year this parliament authorized a twofold investigation; an investigation first for the purpose of inquiring intc certain definite charges made, and, secondly, for the purpose of investigating, examining and figuring out the best possible way to meet any grievances that might exist.
In this connection I am satisfied that the people of Canada desire that the fullest justice should be done to the returned soldiers. I think that the people of Canada, too, have some reason to be grateful to the soldiers' organizations which have brought before the public at large the questions involved. I think that Mr. MacNeil, who has given so generously of his time and of his efforts, deserves the thanks of the people of Canada for bringing, as he has ably done, before the commission the consideration of various problems which were under their purview.
With regard to the first part of the invest! gation, it appears that the Ralston commission have found the charges well-founded, except in so far as the charges covering the matter of conspiracy and lack of good faith were concerned. With regard to the second part of the report, I regret that it has not been distributed so that it is impossible to know, except from newspaper reports, the nature of the recommendations which have been made. I am hopeful-and I am sure the minister in presenting his pensions recommendations to the House, will see to it- that these will have as their purpose the desire to give the fullest justice to returned soldiers. I am satisfied the people of Canada will be satisfied with nothing else. We need, I think, speed and efficiency in consideration of these problems. We need justice in their disposition. It occurs to me that, perhaps, something may be accomplished if we strive for, not only simplification of the work of the pension department, but also unification. I
Supply-S.C.B.-Pensions

have been somewhat surprised by the formula through which the pension applicant must go before he can have his case determined. I do not know whether it has occurred to the minister-I presume it has-but it seems to me there should be some method by which these two principal organizations that we have now, the Pension board on the one hand and the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment on the other, might well be placed under one head, in order that the work might be co-ordinated, and that there might be greater speed. I think this might assist, to some slight extent in securing the justice which the people of Canada desire should be given to every pension applicant. I propose to have something further to say when the legislation comes before the House.


Robert James Manion: What percentage of those
who are blind receive the full allowance of $750 per annum?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not in a position to supply the information as to the exact number of blind soldiers who receive the full amount but I would think a large majority, if not all, receive it. I must congratulate hon. members first of all upon the moderate tone which has prevailed during the discussion. It was expected indeed that the discussion would be conducted in that spirit.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Is it intended to
close the discussion with the minister's remarks?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend might speak now. I would rather wait till all the members have expressed their views before I sum them up, as it were, and indicate what the action of the government is likely to be.


Arthur Edward Ross: I will make a few remarks in this connection, but when the legislation comes up I desire to speak more fully. I think I am speaking as one who perhaps has dealt with more cases than most individual members in the House. I hold in my hand the papers relating to the cases I have dealt with during this session. I think the bundle of papers I have here would be a. fair representation of the work of one member with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. These cases cover exservice men from California to the Yukon and from the Pacific to the Atlantic. There may be one reason why I, perhaps, receive more applications than other members, and that is the fact that I was largely in touch with the medical work at the front. The number of cases will speak for the work of the board.

I am not out to "knock" the board altogether. I can criticize it and criticize it severely, but I doubt if you could get any other board that would do any better, because one of the most difficult duties I know of, connected with the administration of any department of the government is the endeavour to give satisfaction, to the exservice men.
I would like to bring one or two matters to the attention of the minister to-day and the first is the difficulties in connection with these cases. Eighty per cent of these cases of complaint are due to poor presentation of the case at the beginning. The ex-service man has had some medical officer, who is not thoroughly acquainted with ex-service conditions or with, the pension system in general to deal with his case. In these cases I find that the large majority of the difficulties are due to a poor presentation of the case at the beginning. Can the board or department escape criticism in connection with these cases? I do not think they can, because my criticism of the board is, perhaps, largely lack of sympathy, that they do not assist a man in the presentation of his case. Let me exemplify that in one or two cases.
I came in touch with an ex-service man named Dumais, who had cancer in the pelvic region. He received no assistance whatever from the board. When I met the man I said to him: "Have you any history of sickness during your service?" "No, nothing whatever; I was never in a hospital during my service." "Have you any history of an injury?" "No." I said, "Think." He said, "I never thought of it before; during my service a horse kicked me exactly in this place, and I lay in my lines for three days without making any report." It seems strange that during all this time no person in the department suggested to him the history of an accident. Unfortunately that man died six days after I spoke to him. He had no relief; he had no benefit whatever. I am positive that the history of that man's cancer began with the injury he received on service. That is only one of a number of cases in which the board failed, and in those cases they failed to sympathize with the men's condition.
Let me give another example where, I think, they have fallen down and where any board might fall down, but I am giving this as a practical illustration how they can pull up on those cases. There is in the city of Kingston a man who has a history of illness, gas and so on all through the service. This man is now in a mental condition. He drives a cart. He gets off the cart and the

Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions
cart goes one way and he goes the other. That mental condition, I am satisfied, is due to the man's service and conditions affecting him overseas. He may have been in a slightly demented condition before; but he was accepted in that condition, and he went overseas. What did the department do? They were not satisfied as to the report of the medical officer at Kingston; and bear in mind that there are eight or nine medical men there. If they are not fit to carry out their duties, they should be removed and somebody else put in their place. That has been done lately; but that is not a criticism. They took this man from Kingston to Toronto, and they put him before a man who examined him for one day, and who said: "There is nothing wrong with that fellow," and the only explanation given to the man or rather to his wife is: "Cannot you go out and work and help?" That is the land of sympathy that men are getting in some cases from officers connected with the department.
There is a third criticism that I have of the board. A man who has a slight disability comes before them; they, perhaps, pension him along for a while, and later on they may bring him up before one of those specialists they speak about. They say to the man: "We will give you $200 to settle your case." That is ridiculous, and it is the harshest way of dealing with a man that I know of. They are simply trying to clear off the country's responsibility to this man by paying him $100 or $200. If a man has a disability at all, his pension should continue with that disability. If he has no disability, he should be told that he has none, instead of an effort being made to buy him off. That sort of thing has been done too much by both governments, and I am not going to criticize one government more than the other. When the man was discharged he was brought up for examination and one question that was put to him was "Are you satisfied?" They expected to clear off the responsibility of the government or the state or the country to that ex-service man by the answer to that question. Fortunately that has fallen down. The department, however, are doing the same thing to-day; they are trying to buy men off with $100 or $200, because they think these men have no disability at all. They should be straight and above board with these men and meet them and say: "You have no disability; we are representing the state in this matter; we have no responsibility in your case, and therefore we are going to discharge you."


Charles Gavan Power: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that commutation of pensions was brought in at the request of the soldiers' organizations and in spite of the Pension board some two or three years ago?


Arthur Edward Ross: I am not going to accept that as a reason for buying off a man.
I do not care who brought this in, whether it was soldiers' organizations or anyone else. My contention is that this is not a fair way of dealing with a man. Commutation of pension is a different thing altogether from giving this trivial pittance to a man to buy him off. A man may commute his pension; that has been done, and the country has suffered because a man has come back afterwards. That, however, is a different question. What I am speaking of is the effort to buy a man off saying: "Sign this and we are done with you." He may come back later on, ani they put this document up to him and say "You signed this and we are done with you.
These are two or three difficulties with which I have to deal in connection with cases that have come before me. I may say that I have secured satisfaction for ex-service men in 70 per cent of the cases with which I have had to deal, and that is pretty fair dealing; but in all of those cases the board had decided against the man in one way or another. When the case was properly put up, this requiring the work of a medical man to go thoroughly over the case, review it and bring it to a certain point, the man would get reasonable consideration; but this is work that, perhaps, somebody else should not have to do. All the same, I criticize the board along the lines I have mentioned but I doubt if any other board would do any better.
On the other hand, we have just as many criticisms with regards to people who are receiving pensions but who are not entitled to them and for that reason we should be very careful not to throw the board down so that the state or the country may suffer. What we want is a fair deal, a good honest board. What is my recommendation to this end? It is that if you want satisfaction in these cases, you must have men who can give you satisfaction, and I do not believe the medical men doing the work to-day are big enough for the job. You must go out and get the biggest men in the country and pay them decent salaries. If you do that, I think the country will be satisfied and will say: "Well, they have done all they can anyway to meet these men." I know men are on the board for service overseas and so on; but the biggest medical men in Canada were overseas
Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions

and I think their services could be secured. You must make sure that you get big enough men to deal properly with the questions that are brought before them by doctors from the smaller places, and you must pay them reasonable salaries. That is my main criticism, and I think this criticism that comes from many centres will be met if you secure big men as advisers to the board and pay them reasonable salaries.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ANDERSON:: I have just a few words to say with regard to the item before the committee. I am fully aware of the very difficult position which the Pension board occupies. The members of this board have to consider very many serious cases, a number of which I have cognizance of myself. I agree with the remark of my hon. friend who spoke this afternoon (Mr. Ladner), that if the board is a judicial body it does not always act in a judicial manner. Numerous cases come before the board for consideration, and I have noticed within the last year or so that it has been becoming increasingly difficult for any man to get consideration at their hands. I am not in any way adversely criticising the board, but there are a few discrepancies in the act which I think the present minister might very well take into consideration.
I want to submit two or three cases that show that in some cases the board has been somewhat unjust to pensioners. I would refer the minister first of all to pensioner No. 666,734 who had a permanent disability of five per cent recorded on initial examination. This meant a pension for himself and family of $7.50 a month. On September 28, 1920, he was informed by the board that he could have his pension commuted to a lump sum of $300 in cash. This, of course, is not a large amount, in comparison with the enormous sums which this House considers at various times but it is nevertheless of considerable significance to the individual who gets it. In this case the complaint is not in regard to the meagreness of the amount involved, but the apparent injustice that has been done the pensioner. The sum of $300 was allowed him as a commutation for a five per cent permanent disability pension. I wish the minister clearly to understand that the disability was recorded as permanent. This man decided that he would not commute 
the pension but would continue to draw $84 per annum or thereabouts instead of taking the single payment of $300. In 1922, in the month of January, or eighteen months afterwards, he was summoned to Toronto, where he was examined, and was informed that his disability would be reduced to three per cent Naturally, he was very much surprised at this, because his discharge papers distinctly showed that he had a five per cent permanent disability. The fact, however, was that the disability was reduced to three per cent and he was told that he would be given a ca*h payment of $75 and be discharged. Now, the man was not at all unfair. He said he would be perfectly willing, if the board would grant it, to accept the balance to make up $300. He stated to the board that he had refused the commutation of $300 in the mistaken belief that he had a five per cent permanent disability which would entitle him to a pension for the rest of his life. The matter was taken up by the board who granted him another hearing in Toronto; and that second board confirmed the previous decision reducing the disability to three per cent. I had the man examined in Milton by local doctors who gave him a certificate of over five per cent disability. But the board came to the conclusion that local men did not understand the case. They therefore decided to appoint a man of their own in Toronto, a specialist named Clarence Starr, who examined the pensioner and gave him a certificate of between five and ten per cent, thus increasing the amount of disability which he had in his favour in the first instance. The matter was then placed before the board for ie-consideration. After considering it, they decided that the initial examination on which the man was granted five per cent permanent disability, carrying the commutation award of $300 in cash, was wrong. They refused any relief. This is a case in which the board absolutely refused to accept the certificate of independent medical men who examined the man, and rejected the certificate of their own appointee in Toronto, a specialist, I might almost say, of national standing. The point I want to impress upon the minister is this: Instead of basing their decision on the evidence submitted to them, they acted, so to speak, as witnesses in their own behalf and gave a verdict on their own evidence. They were not fair to the man in refusing to accept the independent evidence submitted to them, and in constituting themselves, not, as they were in fact, a judicial body, but witnesses in a cause.

Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions
I have another case to bring to the attention of the minister; the regimental number is 438489. I do not make any statement against the board in regard to this case, which is a very unfortunate one. It is that of a soldier who went overseas, served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force during the whole war, came back to the city of Port Arthur and took ill there in the summer of 1922. There was no possible way of connecting his illness with his service; at least they could get no evidence to connect it. The point is that this man was suffering from cerebrospinal meningitis of infectious origin. In fact, it was stated to be of syphilitic origin. He was sent to an asylum in Toronto and his w'ife was left penniless in Port Arthur. She was sent down to her sister in the county of Halton; that is how the case came to my attention. The sister was the wife of a returned soldier who had no means of supporting this woman; he was on a small farm which he had purchased under the federal land settlement scheme. The woman was dying of tuberculosis. Both these persons have since died, and they received nothing whatever from the government to assist them, although the husband had served during the whole of the war and the wife had gone to work in order to maintain herself in his absence. I must say that the Pension board has nothing to do with this case, but there is something wrong with the Pension Act or the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment Act when it allows a pensioner and the wife of a pensiQner to depend on charity for their subsistence. This was a very unfortunate case, the wife dying of tuberculosis and the husband dying of syphilitic spinal meningitis, having previously been dependent entirely on charity.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I may point out that under clause 12 of the act the board has discretion in such a case to award a pension if the soldier or his dependents are in a dependent condition.


Robert King Anderson: I took this case up with the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment board here in Ottawa and also with the Pension board. I pointed out the peculiar circumstances in which these people were situated, and directed attention to the fact that they had failed to get any assistance whatever. The Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment board claimed that he did not come under their jurisdiction and that they could do nothing in the way of treatment, and the Pension board absolutely refused to grant a pension. They said the matter did not come under
their purview; that they were unable under the Pension Act to give any assistance to this very dependent wife who, suffering from tuberculosis, was dying at the time. I cannot quite understand the statement of the minister, having regard to statements of the Pension board in this case.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I may say in this connection that the department has treated and is treating now many soldiers suffering from syphilitic affections. That is so far as the department is concerned; so far as pension is concerned, naturally that would come under the Pension board. I will read to my hon. friend section 12 of the act:
A pension shall not be awarded when the death or disability of the member of the forces was due to improper conduct as herein defined; provided that the commission may-
The commission "may".
-when the applicant is in a dependent condition, award such pension as it deems fit in the cir-cumstanees.
So the board has full discretionary power in a case of that kind to award a pension to the widow or to the wife of the soldier.


Robert King Anderson: The case was placed squarely before the board, and they claimed that his disability was not due to his service, and that he was therefore not entitled to any pension; and the same was said of the dependent wife. Of course, they do not need it now; there is none of the family left.
Another case I wish to bring to the attention of the minister has to do with regimental number 663.242, pension number 106,363. This man served overseas as a private, returned, was rated as having a pensionable disability and was receiving a pension of S7 a month. He has not been able to do a single day's work since he returned toward the end of 1918: during all this time he has been dependent on his family. He had apparently a peculiar disability, one in connection with which no pathological change could be found. Having received his pension up to January, 1922, he was asked to go to Toronto for treatment. He remained in hospital in Toronto from January, 1922, until May 5, 1922, receiving treatment. He was then discharged from hospital; the doctor told him he could do nothing further for him. Shortly after returning to his home he was notified that his pension had been discontinued. In October I made a further application on his behalf and on October 9 he was returned to the hospital in Toronto for treatment. He remained there for four days, from the 9th to the 13th of October, when, claiming that he could not stand the treatment he was being given, he voluntarily left the hospital and went home.
Supply-S.C .R.-Pensions

A report was then sent in to the Pension board, but they still refused to reinstate his pension. I have taken the matter up with the board on several occasions and they maintain that this man's pension cannot be reinstated unless he submits to further examination and treatment. The claim is made that although this man has been under the doctor's care for over a year, there has been an absolute failure to diagnose his case and to establish any pensionable disability, although the Pension board admit that he is entitled to a pension. Simply because he refuses to return for examination and treatment he is prevented from drawing that pension. I have tried to prevail upon him to return for treatment and consideration of his case, but he refuses to do so, and consequently he is penalized on that ground.


Mr. BEL  AND@: For what reason does he refuse treatment?


Robert King Anderson: Because, he says, the treatment he received has not done him any good and the treatment he received on the last occasion he was there was so severe that he was unable to stand it. He claims that when he left the hospital he was scarcefy able to walk owing to the pain which had been induced by the treatments given. His family now refuse to allow him to return. I think this is a case that might well be looked into by the minister and given serious consideration.
I have one other case to submit-and I may say that these are only a few of the cases which have come to my attention. A soldier who enlisted in 1914 was sent to Valcartier camp and was there only a short time when he contracted cerebro-spinal meningitis and was sent to hospital. During the attack of cerebro-spinal meningitis he contracted pneumonia. He was in hospital there during all the time the soldiers were at Valcartier, and for some time after they left. I cannot give his number; there was no record of his number or of his service; it was very difficult to find out anything about him so far as the records of the department were concerned. This man was a member of the 5th Field Company, Canadian Engineers. This is a letter from Mr. W. L. Malcolm:
He proceeded with us to Valcartier camp on or about August 16, 1914. While at the camp and while under my command Sapper W. L. Mullin contracted spinal meningitis, later followed by pneumonia. He was in hospital in Quebec for a very long period, being there after the camp at Valcartier had been cleared. Later I understood that he returned to Acton, but of his later movements I am not aware.
This man, then, had meningitis, on the statement of his commanding officer. When

this matter was first taken up before the commission, they declined to accept the evidence that was presented of spinal meningitis, but finally I got this letter from Colonel Malcolm. The letter is dated December 21, 1922, and says:
The history of meningitis while on service is not confirmed by records, nor at the time it occurred is there any record of there being a spinal meningitis epidemic. It is true an outburst occurred subsequently in the ranks of the C.E.F.
I remember distinctly hearing that there was an outbreak of spinal meningitis while the soldiers were at Valcartier camp. This does not agree with the statement of the Pension board, but later on apparently they got further evidence and they said:
This man enlisted on August 17, 1914. He took sick on September 24, 1914, at Valcartier camp and was admitted to hospital on the same date with a diagnosis of cerebro-spinal meningitis. He left hospital against the advice of the medical officer in charge and signed a waiver releasing the public from any responsibility for further care or treatment, or liability claim.
On that statement signed by this soldier the Pension board in the first instance based their statement that he was not eligible for pension. During the time after his discharge on the 15th of January, 1915, he was living in the town of Acton and was under treatment by a doctor there who has since died. There was a period of four or five years with no record of this man's disease from any medical officer so far as could be discovered. In 1921, on August 9, six years and seven months later, this man was taken very seriously ill. Previous to being taken ill he had been married, in 1918, I think it was. He had applied for life insurance, and when making his application for life insurance the examining physician discovered that he had a mitral insufficiency, that is a heart lesion, resulting as he said from endo-carditisr. In 1921, six years after this man's discharge, he had a very serious attack of endo-carditis. He was attacked with embolism and was examined by three physicians, and died after consultation. Application was made by his w'idow for a pension and each of these three physicians, well known in that vicinity, gave a certificate that this man died from cerebral embolism produced by heart lesion which they claimed was the result of cerebro-spinal meningitis suffered in 1914. This was brought to the attention of the board, but the board refused a pension on the ground that cerebro-spinal meningitis rarely if ever caused a heart lesion but they forgot that this soldier also suffered from an attack of pneumonia at the same time as he was stricken with spinal meningitis. Now it is a well-known fact that spinal meningitis is an infectious

Supply-S.C .R -Pensions
disease and that it sometimes results in the formation of pus, particularly about the ear. We know also that pneumonia very frequently results in impaired heart action, particularly pneumonia that results from some specific poison. After pneumonia, during an attack of la grippe, a heart lesion is quite frequent because pneumonia that results from a specific poison is not ordinary pneumonia, and it leaves the patient with an impaired and'faulty heart action which, if it is severe enough, may result in embolism causing sudden death. The minister will understand that. Cerebro-spinal meningitis we know from history rarely causes a heart lesion, that is endo-carditis, but it has been known to occur. These gentlemen of the board absolutely refused to accept the certificates of the three medical attendants who saw this man and refused a pension on the ground that his disability and his death were not due to anything that occurred during service, that his disability did not result from his service to the country and they claim that from 1915 when he returned home up to the time this disease was discovered by the doctor examining him for insurance there is a period of something like five years as to which there is no evidence that the man suffered from anything. But the point is that the doctor who attended him during those years is dead, and we cannot present evidence for that period, but there is the evidence of the three medical gentlemen who attended him at the time of his death. The doctors of the Pension board, who never saw this man, and who knew nothing about the circumstances except what is furnished by the evidence, refused to accept that evidence as a judicial board and say their own deductions are better than the opinions of the man who saw this case.
Those are the points I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. I think the board at the present time is not giving the soldier that sympathetic consideration and treatment which parliament intended when the act was passed. They are entirely dependent upon a technical reading of the act. They are administering the letter of the law and missing its spirit, and 1 think if there is anything needed by which these men could see their duty a little more plainly, if these little technicalities were removed from the act, it would be much more easy for the Pension board and a great deal more satisfactory for the soldier, particularly the man who desires to get consideration some time after his discharge from the army on account of a disability appearing after his discharge.
There is one other point I wish to bring to the consideration of the minister and it
is this: Many of these men were discharged from the army without a proper medical examination, and many of them were discharged as physically fit - who had some disability resulting from war service and which is unknown to the department. They were, of course, naturally anxious to get to their homes, and they did anything to get away, waived examination and allowed themselves to be called medically fit. and then later on when they returned to civil life they found they were not physically fit. Just as this man did at Valcartier. He was in a hurry to get home and signed this waiver releasing the country from all liability in regard to him. He came home and died, I think, as a result of his war service.
There is another peculiar feature about this case which .1 wish to bring to the attention of the minister for his consideration. The difficulty was to prove that this man's disability was due to war service. If we proved that his death was due to his military service but that his disability was known previous to his marriage, that entirely eliminated the widow from any chance of getting a pension. That question was brought up in the House more than a year ago, and we amended the act at that time to alter that condition in the Pension Act, but I understand that the amendment was thrown out in the Senate; at least I am so informed, I do not know whether it is correct or not. But after looking over this case and trying to convince the board that his death was due to service, I tried to bridge that gap between 1915 and 1921. I finally did find a doctor who had seen him during this period, and I got a certificate stating that he had examined this man- he was not sure of the date-and had found that he had an endo-carditis and valvular lesion of the heart. I placed the case before the Pension board, and they said that as the man's ailment was known previously to the marriage and that the woman married the man although aware of the fact she was not entitled to come under the provisions of the Pension Act; therefore she cannot get a pension. If such is the case I wish the minister particularly to consider that point, and to have the law amended so that a widow with a small family under such circumstances may be assisted in her own name.
In other respects I may say the Pension board have treated me with the utmost courtesy, and I have no criticism to offer excepting this, that I think they are adhering entirely too closely to the technicalities of the law, rather than interpreting the law according to the spirit. Not only should they interpret the law in a liberal manner, but
Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions

they should give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and not throw the onus of proving the claim entirely upon the returned soldier. Over and over again the board have stated that where evidence can be produced to show the man is entitled to a pension they will consider his case, but until proof of that can be submitted they will not grant him a board. I do not think it is the soldier's place to do that. I think that when a returned soldier, believing he has a disability, makes application for a pension it is the duty of the commissioners when that case is brought to them, to look into the matter and grant a board to inquire into the circumstances, thus deciding for themselves whether he is or is not entitled to a pension. Certainly the onus of proving the claim should not rest upon the returned soldier.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince, P.E.I.):: A great many cases have been submitted to the Pension board which we, from our viewpoint, regard as very reasonable. Some of these cases have received attention but others have been overlooked. I have in mind the case of a big, strong, healthy young man who went overseas, was wounded in the thighs and back and is now receiving the small pension of $11.50 per month. Shortly after his return home his eyesight began to fail and to-day he is totally blind. The case of this man has received attention from the board. He has been taken to Halifax and has undergone different examinations, but still the Pension board seem to be of the opinion that his blindness cannot be attributed directly to his overseas service. His claim for an increase in pension has therefore been turned down. This is one very outstanding case among a large number that I have been written to about, and I wish to thank the minister for the splendid assistance he has given me. In some cases, as I say, we have been able to get the pension claims adjusted. In other cases if we have not been equally successful the minister has done everything in his power to meet the situation. The board seem to act strictly according to the letter of the law, and, as has been stated here by different speakers, seem to evidence a lack of sympathy in some cases. Possibly we cannot blame the board for this as it may be their duty to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the act. Nevertheless, I feel that in some cases such as I have mentioned there ought to be a means of redress; and I certainly hope that the appeal board that is to be appointed will give proper attention to deserving cases which everyone feels should

be thoroughly looked into. The blind man to whom I have referred has a wife and two children. I have a letter on my desk with respect to the case, but perhaps it would not be fitting at the present moment to take up the time of the House by reading it. Let me say that the people of the vicinity have had to go round and collect subscriptions to help this man and his family. It may be as well to point out that this poor fellow risked his life in our behalf. He is certainly deserving of greater consideration than he has yet received, and I trust that his case will be suitably dealt with.
I have also in mind another case. It is that of a woman whose two sons were killed overseas. Shortly afterwards her husband died. Although she has been left what we call a fairly good farm down in our province she is unable to work it, and derives no profit from this source. Her case has also been looked upon by the Pension board as not deserving of any consideration owing to the fact that she owns this property. I merely wish to put myself on record as saying that I trust that in the future such cases as these will be given greater consideration. I again thank the minister for his courtesy in assisting me in the great many cases I have brought before him.


Mr. CLARK:: During the discussion this afternoon we heard a great deal of criticism with regard to the administration of the Pension Act. I have had some experience in presenting cases to the Pension board, and I have never undertaken a more difficult task than that of interpreting the law and presenting properly cases of applicants for pension. The member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) made some reference this afternoon to the medical services. Personally I think he touched upon the point which requires attention and which contains the only cure if a cure exists as the law stands, namely, that we must have the best medical men this country possesses to perform the work connected with the Pension Act.
In the Canadian Pension Act we have a clause which is different from the Imperial Pension Act, a clause which has given rise to the difficulty. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that nine-tenths of the complaints that have occurred in Canada have arisen under that particular section, namely, that in order to secure a pension a man's disability must be attributable to service. In Great Britain (if a man was discharged and had nothing on his medical history sheet which indicated that he had disability connected with his war service that was the end of it, and if disability arose in the future no attention was paid

Supply-S.C. R.-Pensions
to it. In our country the law is quite different. If disability arises subsequent to discharge, although there is nothing on the medical history sheet to indicate that the disability was in any way connected with service, if it subsequently transpires that that disability which has arisen is attributable to service then the man gets a pension. This is purely a medical question. The Pension board -I do not care who they are-must be largely guided, and in ninety-nine per cent of the cases must be bound, by the conclusions of the medical men who investigate that particular point as to whether or not the disability is attributable to service. Now, I venture to say that as long as there are service men alive in this country there is going to be dissatisfaction under the Pension Act, unless the country is prepared to wipe out that clause altogether and allow any man who has had service overseas to come in and claim pension when disability arises, whether it is attributable to service or whether it is not. If you are going to leave the clause in the act that it must be shown that the disability is attributable to service, there will be dissatisfaction in this country amongst service men just as long as there are service men alive, because each applicant will be convinced that his disability is attributable to service. We might as well recognize that. The Ralston commission has proposed a cure for this dissatisfaction, namely an appeal board. I hesitate to differ with the royal commission that has had the advantage of evidence taken from coast to coast, and has had months to consider the matter. I am judging now by some of the applications for my support that are made by various men in this country who want jobs as members of these appeal boards. The minister can readily understand that I will have no influence in having members appointed on these appeal boards. Some of the applicants I would not recommend to the minister, and others I would. I can readily see the position the minister is going to be placed in when these applications begin to pour in from all over the country for jobs in nine different districts as members of these appeal boards and as advocates for the returned soldiers. I do not think that scheme is going to be a cure. I regret to think that it is not going to be a cure. I recognize, however, the situation which has been described by every speaker and the difficulties which have arisen under this particular section, and I personally think the most effective remedy is to improve our medical service until we evolve a medical service that will be so efficient that mistakes
will be reduced to a minimum. I do not think we can eradicate mistakes, but we can minimize them. Now I am not criticizing the medical service in the country, because I think the officials are doing their utmost, but they are dealing with these cases every day, and they adopt the official attitude which one is bound to adopt when he is dealing with such cases day after day, and the sympathetic touch with the returned men is lost, and these cases are very often dealt with in such a way that they do not get to the root of the trouble, and do not really determine whether the case is attributable to service or not.
The minister has determined to establish appeal boards, and I would hate to think that I would have any influence in stopping anything that is going to be of benefit to the returned soldier or going to assist in eliminating or minimizing the dissatisfaction . that exists. We have a judiciary in this country which to-day is not overworked; in fact, every province in this country has been enacting statutes which have reduced the volume of work whch our judges throughout the length of the country have to do. For instance, there are county court judges in every county throughout Canada. If the minister is going to have an advocate appointed in each of the eight or nine districts to advocate the claims of returned soldiers, why can the advocate not go before one of the county court judges who has been appointed by the Dominion and advocate his claim? They will certainly receive considerate and sympathetic treatment before our judges, because I do not think any body of men that we could pick out in the country would be more sympathetic than these judges. I think we would get justice just as readily from them as we will from appeal boards which are established, and which, as I am bound to say, will take on a political flavour, which would be a very serious matter in the interests of the returned men, if political appointments are going to be made, and I do not see how it is going to be avoided.


Mr. CARROLL:: Last year I think the
committee dealing with pensions made a recommendation to the House that an appeal board should be constituted at Ottawa, and I understand it has been constituted. Does the hon. member know whether anything has come of it?


John Arthur Clark: I have never run into it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Better ask me the question. I can answer it.
Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions


John Arthur Clark: Many cases have been presented and I want to make concrete suggestions as to amendments to the present Pension Act. I will refer to two cases which I have brought before the Pension board, and will ask for consideration. I am perfectly satisfied with the decision of the board in both cases, but they have convinced me that the law is such that they cannot do anything. Members have complained that these men carry out the law. What would be said *of them, if they did not carry out the law? They are bound by the statutes we have passed. I think where these difficulties arise, and we have cases which are not provided for by law, it becomes our duty to bring in concrete suggestions by way of amendment, to meet these different cases. That is what I propose to suggest now in reference to these two cases. One of these is the case of a woman whose marriage certificate I have in my possession. She was married in England, in good faith, and came back to Canada with her husband. Her husband died and she made application for pension; but it then appeared that the man was previously married, and his real widow, who had a family also, made application for the pension, and the pension was granted to the real widow. Now . this is not an isolated case, although it is the only one I have in my possession, but it is the type of case, which undoubtedly should 'be provided for. The first widow would no doubt have been entitled to her pension, but there is no reason in the world *why the second wife should not be provided for in the act.
Mr. BELAND Would the hon. member suggest that the two widows should each receive a pension in this case? I am simply asking for the hon. member's opinion.


John Arthur Clark: Decidedly, I would say so, provided there was no immoral conduct on the part of either; but it so happens in this particular case the country would not be required to pay two pensions, because the first wife has since re-married; therefore, she has lost her pension, and the pension is now being paid to no one. But it is impossible under the law as it now stands to pay the pension to the second wife or widow.
The other is the case of Private McPhail, of Brandon, who died in Vancouver a short time ago. He was taken prisoner during the war and received very brutal treatment. He was wounded in the eye, and did not receive treatment for it for many days after he was taken prisoner. He came back to Canada completely wrecked in health and without his eyesight. He died the other day, and

I have forgotten the nature of the disease from which he died, but in any case it was some six years after discharge. Up to the time of his death he was a 100 per cent pensioner, but having died more than five years after discharge his widow was not entitled to the pension, because the medical officers of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment maintain that the disability from which he died was not due to service. The old question of attributability comes up in this case as in nearly every case. So far as cases of this type are concerned, they can be met by an amendment to the Pension Act. I would suggest that where a man was a disability case to the extent of 100 per cent or even, perhaps, of less than 100 per cent, no matter how long after discharge that man died, his widow Should receive a pension, because this is exactly the same as though the man were killed in France in service. The mere fact that he happens to live five or six helpless years will probably make the widow's case the harder. Far better for the widow had the man been killed outright, even though she received the total pension if he died six years or ten years afterwards. That is a case that might be taken under consideration. I have forgotten the number of the section; but the period is five years now, and where a man is a disability to the extent of 100 per cent, that provision should be wiped out, and no matter how long after discharge his death takes place, the widow should receive the full pension.
Those are two concrete suggestions that T have to offer to the minister, and I also hope, before he decides upon the exact nature of this appeal board, he take the matter unde-very serious consideration, because I do not foresee clear sailing by any manner of means under that appeal board. In fact, as I say, as long as we have in our act the provision that a man must show disability due to service, we shall [DOT] have dissatisfaction in this country, at least just as long as any ex-servic-3 man lives.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: I think the tone ol the discussion that has taken place to-dav is not attributable to anything in the estimate before the committee, which estimate is the ordinary vote of recent years to provide for payment of pensions; but the discussion is because of the interest which the public i i taking to-day in the whole question of pensions payable to members of the
9 p.m. Canadian Expeditionary Force and their dependents. During the waf promises were made to the soldiers that the disabled and their dependents and the de-

Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions
pendents of those who were killed would be cared for. I do not think the public has grown cold in the matter; I think the public had simply lost track of the situation until very recently and was not in touch with what was going on. In line with public sentiment that returned soldiers and their dependents who needed help should be helped, legislation to that end was passed. The legislation was intended to be generous; it went further than any previous legislation establishing pensions had ever gone. It was passed entirely on the insurance principle: that is, pensions were awarded for any disability incurred or aggravated on service; it did not matter whether the disability or death was due to service or not. In other words, the country insured the soldier against any disability incurred while on service, whether or not the service caused the disability. For instance, a soldier on leave might be run over by a tram car and injured or killed. That disability incurred during the period of his service would entitle him or his dependents to a pension just as much as if he had inhaled poison gas from the Hun trenches or been killed by a Hun bullet. The other principle of the two is that pension is payable only because disability is due to service, for instance, where a man was wounded or killed in action. The present investigation and interest in pensions are due to charges made against the Pension board by the Great War Veterans' Association. That association complained that in 1920 the "due to service" principle was introduced into the act on the recommendation *of the Pension board, who represented to the parliamentary committee of that time that this principle would apply only to the permanent force and to those serving in peace time, and not to the Canadian Expeditionary Force. But according to the Great War Veterans' Association, notwithstanding those assurances, the principle was applied to the Canadian Expeditionary Force men and their dependents as well. In support of that, T propose to quote briefly to the committee some of the findings of the Ralston Commission. This is set out at page 44 of the first report:
The 1919 Pension Act had reference essentially to those who had served in the war, and it included the few who remained in service after peace was declared, to clean up the debris of war. The permanent force was not included.
The 1919 act provided that pensions were payable on the "insurance principle," that is, for any disability incurred during service, although not "due to service", but it was intended, by the second proviso to section 11, that when peace was declared, Canada would go back to the "due to service" principle.
The Great War Veterans' Association claims that this *change was not to affect discharged Canadian Expeditionary Force men, as to disabilities or deaths connected with their period of service, while the Pension board contends that it was to apply to all deaths or disabilities occurring after peace was declared, whether of discharged Canadian Expeditionary Force men or those still serving.
The commission found that, in its opinion, the change was only to apply to those who continued in the service for peace time duty, and was not to affect discharged Canadian Expeditionary Force men as to disabilities or deaths connected with their period of service.
The representatives of the returned men thought that the change was not to affect discharged Canadian Expeditionary Force men or their dependents.
The representatives of the returned men asked, before the 1920 Parliamentary committee and elsewhere, whether the Canadian Expeditionary Force men or their dependents were affected by these amendments, and were told by representatives of the Pension board that they were not. They also undertook that if any further provision were necessary to safeguard the rights of these men and their dependents, it would be put in. The representatives of the Great War Veterans' Association accepted these assurances and the amendments were passed.
In view of the commission's conclusion as to the true construction and intention of the 1919 act, it can be said now that these assurances were not carried out because the saving clause section 29, construed literally, did not protect the rights which discharged Canadian Expeditionary Force men and their dependents had acquired under section 11 of the 1919 act, but only saved disabilities or deaths occurring before September 1,	1920, as to everybody, Canadian Expeditionary
Force or otherwise. After that date the new section 11 came into effect as to discharged Canadian Expeditionary Force men and their dependents, as well as to all others, and this meant that after that date, if the statute were interpreted strictly, two classes of cases which formerly had been dealt with on the "insurance principle" would be refused pension unless they could show that the death or disability was caused by military service.
These classes would be-
And very wide classes they are:
(1)	The dependents of those who died after September 1, 1920, even though the death was due to something which was incurred on service, and even though the deceased had been receiving pension for the very trouble which caused the death.
(2)	The discharged Canadian Expeditionary Force man who had a disability which could be shown to be connected with his period of service, but who could not show that his condition at discharge was serious enough to constitute a disability.
Then the commission in general find in favour of the charges made by the Great War Veterans' Association, that is as to anything important in the charges, and the commission recommend legislation that will re-instate applicants, including their dependents, in their rights under the original act of 1919. There can be no doubt, I think, that the Pension board, within recent years at any rate, has constituted itself too much a watchdog of the treasury. They have looked on applicants for pensions with too much suspicion. They have, I believe, sought opportunities to refuse applications rather than to bring them reasonably within the act.

Supply-S. C-R.-Pensions

I do not think that the government wishes them to act in that way; I do not think that either parliament or the public wishes them to do so. I think they have taken the wrong cue. In the investigation before the parliamentary committee last session, on which I had the honour to serve, it was plain to me, as I think it was to the members of the committee, that the Pension board was carrying out the letter rather than the spirit of the law, or the intention of parliament-either of this or of preceding parliaments; and it was quite apparent to me, and I have no doubf it was equally obvious to the committee generally, that the board would persist in its policy of carrying out the letter of the law in that way regardless of the recommendations of any parliamentary committee. I understand, from press reports, that it is more than likely they will also disregard the recommendations of the Ralston commission. I believe the board could very much ameliorate present conditions by a little give and take in their administration of the act. They have tightened up too much.
This afternoon the member for Vancouver South (Mr Ladner) referred with some particularity to a case that came before the committee last session. I refer to what is known as the Percy White case. That matter was practically retried before the parliamentary committee last year. The board was represented before the committee and the applicant and her witnesses also appeared. Both sides were fully heard, and after hearing them and seeing them face to face the committee recommended that the pension be granted, and advised the board that in their opinion it had been wrong in refusing the pension. Surely that was reason enough for the board to relent and grant the pension. I do not think they are quite so conscience-bound as to be unable to do so if they really wished to be fair. But notwithstanding the representation of the parliamentary committee they refused to reconsider the matter. I do not say that the Pension board is always unfair or intentionally unfair, but in that case at least one of the members of the board was downright and intentionally unfair to the applicant. There is evidence on the file today of such unfairness on the part of at least one of the members of that body. There is evidence of personal antagonism to the applicant, who was a widow in ill-health, penniless and with an infant child to support. It is plain from the evidence that this member of the board so far forget himself as to ignore all demands of fair play and of gentlemanly instincts and to place on file grossly unfair notations, having no bearing whatever on 
the merits or demerits of the application, gratuitously insulting, and calculated to prejudice the board against the application. There is no question about that; if they have not been removed, the notations are there yet to speak for themselves. I do not propose to detail the evidence that was given before the parliamentary committee in that case; it was gone into sufficiently by the hon. member for Vancouver South this afternoon. I can only say that a flagrant injustice was done and is being persisted in; and that is only one of a number of similar cases which have not been remedied.
This new ruling of the board under which they tightened up in their policy became known to the Great War Veterans' Association only some six months after it had been made. For some unaccountable reason the board kept that ruling practically secret at head office until finally it got out in some way not accounted for. The evidence before the Ralston commission is that the board did not know how that minute was ever communicated to any of the district offices. They did not send it out officially; it leaked out mysteriously. Fortunately, however, it did get out and the Great War Veterans' Association then became aware of the principle on which the board was acting. This was the state of affairs in the closing hours of the 1922 session of parliament when Mr. Mac-Neil, the secretary of the association, realizing that something desperate had to be done to wake up the public, parliament and the government, sent his famous telegram. The telegram, I think, was worded extremely; there was no reason to suspect the Pension board of a secret conspiracy, which was the effect of the telegram. But there was every evidence to warrant Mr. MacNeil in assuming that secret regulations were being made-and as a matter of fact had been made, and had been withheld from the public-under which the board was acting. He had to startle the government into attending to that piece of public business; and he did so, with the result that the Ralston commission was appointed. After many sittings, a very thorough investigation and the hearing of much evidence and of many witnesses, the commission submitted a finding entirely favourable to the Great War Veterans' Association, recommending legislation which, if enacted, will leave very little to the discretion of the board. They recommend the establishment of central appeal boards.
It goes without saying that the position of members of the board is a difficult and delicate one to maintain. I have had exactly

Supply-S.C.B.-Pensions
the same experience as many members who have already spoken on this matter have had. I am free to observe that in regard to the specific cases which I have submitted to the board I have received nothing but the most courteous and proper treatment. I have half a dozen cases pending now before them and I expect the same treatment. But there is no reason why any special pleader should have to go to the board. They should decide all applications on their merits. No member of parliament should find it necessary to go to the board; nor should any applicant for a pension have to enlist the services of a member of this House, no matter how willingly they may be given. It should be all in the day's work of the board. The condition should not exist wherein the Pension board refuses an application and then, because some member of parliament or some other agent pleads the case further, reverses its decision. The decision should be right in the first instance. When we hear of cases being refused simply because they have not been properly presented, whose fault is it? Surely it is not the fault of the applicant; it is the fault of the board. The board should see to it that the evidence is all properly submitted and that the case is finally and fully presented before they give their decision.
I might mention one astounding case I have now in hand of a man who went to the war as a volunteer. He was a strong, healthy man in every respect, a six-footer. He was hit in the arm with shrapnel; the arm was shattered and has since not been of any use to him. He was sent from hospital to hospital till the armistice came and he was finally sent to Canada. He did not want to go to hospital in Canada and in his hurry to get his discharge he told them to mark him A-I. The disability was apparent, however; the arm was stiff, as it still is; he cannot raise it above his shoulder and cannot lift anything. They discharged him A-l, and in various ways he managed to get employment until' the past winter when he was up against it. When I inquired of him I was astonished to find that he was getting no pension, I advised him to apply and he did so; but to my amazement pension has not been granted. I have not found out why; it may have been because of his eagerness to get his discharge. But it is such cases as these that are causing dissatisfaction. Although the act is not as perfect as it should be or as it can be, I think that a great deal of dissatisfaction could have been avoided had the board seen fit to adopt a more diplomatic attitude. On the contrary, they have in some cases
238J
adopted the most toplofty or infallible attitude; they could not err; they could not make' a mistake; what they said was the law and must stand. That attitude is not calculated, to make the administration of that department very popular. The people are becoming alive to the fact that legislation is necessary to meet the present state of affairs and to give the board power to do what they say they would like to do but are prevented by law from doing. When that legislation is finally framed and passed and becomes effective, there may not be much need of appeal boards; personally I hope there will not be at any rate. I must say I have not very much faith that relief will be afforded by a multiplicity of pension boards which, in effect, is the legislation recommended by the Ralston commission. They really recommend the establishment of a great number of district pension boards. If one pension board cannot do any better than it has been doing, I do not think nine or ten or twelve will bring about any greater degree of satisfaction. I have more faith in the judgment of courts of the land, experienced and trained as they are in the weighing of evidence and the administering of justice. Expense, after all, is not a matter to be very seriously considered if we can get satisfaction for the returned soldiers and their dependents. But in any case, before adopting in toto the recommendations of the Ralston commission, I would urge the government to take into account the suggestion which has been made to-day by other members as well as by myself, namely, that appeals from the decisions of the Pension board should go to the regularly constituted courts of the land, which, I affirm, are quite.' competent to deal with the situation.


Henri Sévérin Béland: First of alj, I should like to make clear the position the minister occupies with regard to the administration of the Pension Act. The Board of Pension Commissioners is constituted by a special clause of the Pension Act, and it is provided by that act that the decisions of the board shall be final. So that whatever may be the desire of any hon. member or of any member of the government; whatever may be the desire of the minister in charge of the department, to whom the board is bound to make a report, no decision of the board can in any way be altered or appealed from. The contention of the board is that they interpret the act as it has been enacted by this parliament. Reference was made by the last speaker (Mr. Black, Yukon), and also, I think, by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) to the principle which ran through the whole
Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions

act of 1919. Nothing can be truer than their assertion in this regard. In 1919 a Pension Act was passed by this parliament providing for men who had served in the Canadian Expeditionary Force a pension for any disability incurred on service and also for any aggravation of a pre-existing disability, whether or not such disability was attributable to service. That was the condition that prevailed in 1920, when the act of 1919 was amended. It will be remembered that through an error peace was declared on the tenth of January, 1920; the real declaration of peace took place on the thirty-first of August, 1921. During the session of 1920 a special parliamentary committee dealt with pensions and reestablishment generally. It was thought during that session that peace had been declared; and if you read carefully the act of 1919 you will see that there is a special provision that after the declaration of peace pensions should be awarded in respect of death or disability when these were attributable to service. Now, in the session of 1920 an amendment was introduced to the Pension Act of 1919 repealing section 11, which was the vital section, and replacing it by the provision that pension should be awarded in respect of disability or death when such disability or death were the direct result of military service. I had at that time the advantage of being a member of the parliamentary committee, as I have been ever since the war with the exception of last year.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister was on that committee. Will he say it was the intention of the committee or of parliament at that time that that change should apply to members or ex-members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, or was it not the intention that the change should apply only to members of the permanent fprce?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I was coming to that: I could not speak of it before I had mentioned the fact that the law had been amended. Before the parliamentary committee representatives of the Pension board were heard and they stated definitely that the new section would not affect the Canadian Expeditionary Force men but would be applicable only to men who remained on service after the declaration of peace, having in mind undoubtedly the men of the permanent force. That act was passed by parliament and things went on until 1921, when another special parliamentary committee had to deal with pension matters. Then the words "as such" were added to the 1920 clause 11, and the clause in 1921 after that addition would

read about like this: Pensions shall be awarded when disabilities or death are attributable to military service as such. Again I think it was pointed out that that had reference only to men of the permanent force and that men of the Canadian Expeditionary Force would not be affected, that it did not change the practice with regard to them. Now the declaration of peace took place on the 31st day of August, 1921, and bearing in mind what the 1919 Pension Act said, that after the declaration of peace pensions would be awarded only in respect of disabilities or death attributable to war service, having also in mind the amendment of 1920 which did away with the insurance principle clause of 1919, and having also in mind this other amendment of 1921, the Pension board issued in the month of September, 1921, a minute in which it was stated that pensions henceforth would be awarded only when disabilities or death were attributable to military service. That altered to a large degree the practice that the Pension board had followed up to that time. I hope I make myself clear, but if I do not I would invite any question in order to make everybody absolutely satisfied that he understands the situation.


Leon Johnson Ladner: On what authority was that minute of the Pension board issued?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The Pension board does not require any authority at all to interpret the act. The act itself confides it to the discretion of the board to make their own interpretation, and moreover, my hon. friend being a lawyer and better versed in legal questions than I am knows as well as I do that if you read section 11 of the act as it was passed in 1920 it is plain that pensions can be awarded only when disabilities or death are attributable to military service. But as to what my hon. friend mentioned a moment ago, when this very limiting amendment was considered before the parliamentary committee it was then openly stated by the representatives of the board that this clause would apply only to men who remained on service after the declaration of peace and would not affect the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. This minute was issued in the month of September, 1921, under the authority of the Pension board, and they have that authority; it is given to them.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Are they the final arbiters on the question of the interpretation of the law? Have they any method of referring, for instance to the Supreme Court?

Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions


Henri Sévérin Béland: They are the final arbiters. There is an appeal from the Pension board today, but it is an appeal from the Pension board to the Pension board, and that is the only appeal there is.


Robert James Manion: Do they not often get the opinion of the Justice department in interpreting the act?


Henri Sévérin Béland: They do, but they are
not forced to do it. They may seek the opinion of the Department of Justice. In this instance they have sought the opinion of the Department of Justice on clause 11 as it now stands on the statute, and the Justice department, and I think properly so, replied that the board's interpretation of the letter of the act was correct. No one could say otherwise.
But what I have in mind, Mr. Chairman, are the declarations that were made before the parliamentary committee by the representatives of the Pension board to the effect that the new clause 11 would only apply to members of the permanent force, because as they said there is now no longer any Canadian Expeditionary Force. It was then made perfectly clear by the chairman of that committee, Mr. Cronyn, and by a number of hon. gentlemen who sat on that committee, and in particular by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs), that it would not affect the Canadian Expeditionary Force men. The clause as you read it in the act to-day does not refer at all to disabilities or death incurred on service, but only to disabilities or death which are the result of military service as such. Having said that much, I do not want to delay the committee much longer.
I may say that when the Pension board in 1921 issued that minute which placed upon their medical examiners the duty of awarding or recommending pension only to those who came within clause 11 of the new act of 1920, and 1921, the practice of the board and the practice of the medical examiners all over the country was naturally altered to a large degree. It was only a few months after that it was noticed that a stricter interpretation of what was thought to be the act was being applied by the Pension board and certain accusations were levelled against the Pension board. The rest of the story is known to every hon. member of this House. The accusations were investigated by a royal commission, which has taken a great deal of pains to get in contact with service men of every unit, and this royal commission has already submitted two reports bearing particularly upon pensions, appeals and insurance. The report has been placed in the hands of hon. members, and it is not for me to say what hon. members Bhould think of it.
As far as the charges against the Pension board of plot or conspiracy or ulterior motive are concerned, they have not been sustained. The royal commission has found, however, that the practice has been altered by the Pension board and that generally their policy had been unsympathetic, and that increased severity had taken place in the consideration of pension applications. If it could not be called undue severity, surely there was increased severity in dealing with applications for pensions. Now, the Ralston commission has submitted a number of recommendations in regard to the Pension Act. These recommendations I think will be carried out substantially by the bill which I shall introduce into the House, within two or three days, I hope. The resolution is already on the order paper which covers the main part of the bill.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask, will the bill include reverting to the insurance principle so that the remainder of the expeditionary force can enjoy the same advantage as those who acted prior to September 1920?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes. I am not expected of course, to go into details at the present time. As minister in charge of the department I have been overwhelmed by complaints coming from ex-service men. I have a good deal of sympathy with most of my colleagues who have had two or three departments to administer during the last year. I think I might have as much sympathy for myself because I do not believe that the work performed by any other member of the government has been as arduous as the task that was mine during that time. I can fairly say that over 2,000 cases have been submitted to me for examination and for action. Those cases did not all have reference to pensions, but a large portion of them did. Others were treatment cases. Both classes in many instances, came together. Some hon. members, to-night or this afternoon, referred to their lack of success in submitting cases to the Pension board. Let me tell them that I have not been more fortunate than they have. Out of, I should say, about 1,000 cases, at least, of pensions submitted to the board for reconsideration I do not think that I have succeeded in more than 2 or 3 per cent. In other words the Pension board interpreted the act as they read it, and I do not believe that they will yield to any outside influence, which 1 think is something to their credit. I would not approve of their conduct if, in my cases though they might not be deserving, they should yield and award a pension. In many cases-I would not venture to state how many,
Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions

but in fifty cases at least-that I have submitted to the Pension board I believe that I would have given a different decision to the one they rendered. I may have been wrong but my impression was at that time [DOT]that pensions should have been awarded in those particular cases. However, the Pension board thought in their wisdom that the act would not permit them to award a pension.
You do not, Mr. Chairman, expect me to go into the individual cases that have been submitted this afternoon by different hon. members. Most of them, I think, have come to my knowledge. Some are very interesting, some are peculiar, some are very rare. In &, particular instance, I fancy, there is only *one case such as that referred to by one hon. member, and I scarcely think the Pension Act should be amended on that account. If the sentiment of the people of Canada, if the sentiment of the House of Commons and parliament generally, is that the act has not been properly interpreted by the Pension board, the only recourse is to amend the act and provide for an appeal. I do not know of any court in the British Empire, outside of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that is without an appeal. In Great Britain there are thirty different district boards specially appointed for the purpose of dealing *with pensions and ex-soldiers. In the United States they had at first a very large number of district boards, but they have contracted this number gradually to fourteen. They now have fourteen district boards operating in the United States. There is an appeal from those district boards to another board in Washington, the exact evolution of which I forget. There is also an appeal from the decision of that second board, and finally an appeal from the third decision to the President of the United States.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Would the minister mind saying whether those appeals are in the nature of a rehearing of the case and of the evidence, or are the cases tried in the courts just as cases are tried here before a trial judge, the case going to appeal with the same evidence subject to addition where evidence is omitted by mistake?


Henri Sévérin Béland: 
John Arthur Clark: What particular tribunals
does the minister refer to?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The courts of justice,-the
circuit court.


John Arthur Clark: Quite true; I realize that,
but there are many more divisions. In regard to the particular division I have referred to,
I feel quite convinced the situation is comparatively uniform thoroughout the country, and I think the hon. members for eastern Canada will bear me out in the statement that the work is not congested in any sense of the word. In fact I venture to say that in every county court in Canada the cases which are entered for trial at the beginning of the month are fully disposed of each month.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend's judges are happy judges.


John Arthur Clark: I am not referring to British Columbia only.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In the city of Montreal,
where undoubtedly a large number of appeals would arise, I do not know of a court that could hear those appeals to-day. I cannot speak for Halifax, Winnipeg, or Vancouver, but in the cities the courts are generally overwhelmed with cases, and they have more than they can attend to. My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Boys) would, perhaps, know more about the situation in Ontario than I do.


Mr. BOYS:: I would say that outside of Toronto, in the province of Ontario, I think the statement of the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) is correct. I refer now to the time that I think Ontario county court judges would have for disposal of appeals of the kind under discussion. I think the courts of appeal in Toronto sitting in appeal from the county court judges have plenty to do. But I venture to say in all the counties, outside of Toronto, and possibly Ottawa, London and Hamilton, the county court judges would have time to dispose of these appeals, if the minister thought that was the proper method of disposing of them.
Supply-S.C R.-Pensions


Henri Sévérin Béland: Of course I do not think that is the proper method. I am, however, subject to conviction. Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and London have a combined population of at least one-third of the population of the whole province of Ontario. One-half of the appeals, I would judge, would come from those cities, and those appeals would have to come before those city tribunals. Is an ordinary court of justice a competent board? Can one imagine, for instance, all the files needed in the trials of some of these cases being removed from the units to the different county court divisions, in Ontario for example? The matter is quite different if the board sits in a city itself; it is within easy reach of the unit where the files of the men are available.
As to the constitution of the court; generally those courts will have only one judge. The boards must have men who are conversant with military matters, with veterans' claims generally, with veterans' ailments. Members of the board should know what conditions prevailed in the army, generally speaking, and that is why I presume the royal commission recommends that two of any three men should be ex-service men. I believe also the recommendation is made in this regard upon the insistence of returned men generally. I do not know that in England those cases are tried before the ordinary courts of law. I am informed, and I think credibly, that those boards have been appointed by the Minister of Pensions for the purpose of hearing cases and then appeals upon decisions.
I think I have dealt with almost every feature of this subject that has been brought up very moderately by hon. gentlemen. The question of dealing with veterans generally has never been in the past, from the moment I served on the parliamentary committee in 1919 to this day, a matter of
10	p.m. political cleavage. All the parliamentary committees from 1919 to last year have dealt with this question regardless of any political leanings that any member of it may have. This spirit has prevailed all through. I believe it is the intention of the people of Canada to give to the returned men a square deal,-justice-full justice-and if there is some remote measure of doubt in the case of a returned man, that he should get the benefit of the doubt, in other words, be treated with generosity. It will be in that spirit that I will submit, during the course of this week, I hope, the legislation that is intended.


John Arthur Clark: What particular case had the minister in mind when he said some time ago that there was only one case of that type in existence, and, therefore, legislation dealing with that case would not be justified.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think it was the case of a man with two wives.


John Arthur Clark: If that is the only case that has come to my attention, I think there are other cases like it. I presume the minister will admit that it is a case in which justice should be done to the woman, she having married the man in a bona fide manner. How does the minister propose to deal with such a case if no legislation covering it is to be introduced?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The case submitted by my hon. friend has been disposed of as one of the widows has re-married.


John Arthur Clark: No, it has not.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understood my hon.
friend to say that one of the widows had remarried.


John Arthur Clark: But a pension having once beeen awarded to one of the widows, the other one is barred forever by the act.


Henri Sévérin Béland: , I have now in mind another similar case to that referred to by my hon. friend. It came to my knowledge some six or seven months ago. I do not know in what way the matter was settled, but I have the feeling that it was adjusted. At all events, there are so few cases that they may be easily dealt with. I do not think I have anything else to say in this regard. The discussion has been interesting, instructive, illuminating in some regards, and I think also I have supplied the committee with all possible information in connection with the amount that was paid in pensions dun ng last year.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister did not
state in connection with the proposed legislation, whether he intended to deal with the construction of section 11 in its relation to section 25 (3), that being the section which states that "no deduction shall be made from the pension of any member of the forces who has served in a theatre of actual war" and who was admitted as being physically fit when he enlisted. As the minister knows, the applicant must come under section 11 which deals with the rates of pensions before he can claim the benefit of this "no deduction" clause. That is a matter of importance and we have heard nothing in regard to it.

Supply-S.C R.-Pensions


Henri Sévérin Béland: It has been dealt with in
the preparation of the bill. Clause 25 (3) has been removed under section 11.


Robert James Manion: The minister pointed out
that the Pension board can act only within the statute. That is correct to a certain extent; but there are in the act a number of clauses under which the Pension board are allowed the discretion and I think that should be pointed out, because continually the Board of Pension Commissioners themselves point out that they cannot do such and such a thing because the act does not permit them to do it. The minister made that statement fairly strongly himself. While he was speaking, I looked over half a dozen clauses, clauses 29, 31, 33, 34, 37, and in all those clauses I have given the numbers of, the term "in their discretion" or "in their opinion" is used. That is as to the granting of pensions, so that in many clauses of the Pension Act the board can act in their discretion or opinion. Therefore, they are not tied down to cast iron rules as the impression would be given by the minister or themselves. I wish to make that correction because I think it is only fair that that statement should be corrected. They are tied down to cast iron rules in many of the clauses; but in many others the matter is left to their discretion, and it is usually in those clauses that cases arise on which there are disputes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Of course I am perfectly
aware that in the Pension Act a number of clauses give the Pension board wide discretionary powers. But I beg to differ from my hon. friend when he says that these discretionary clauses are the vital clauses of the act.


Robert James Manion: I did not say that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Well, I understood my hon. friend to say that most of the cases that were complained of came under those clauses.


Robert James Manion: I said that very many of the cases came under them, and I think they do.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not share my hon. friend's view, and I beg to differ humbly from his opinion. Most of the complaints are due to the interpretation or administration of two clauses of the act, clause 11, which is the vital section, providing for the award of pensions in the case of disability and death, and section 25, subsection 3, which deals with pre-existing disabilities in the case of men who served in any theatre of actual war. Outside of that, of course, there are a number of discretionary clauses. For instance, there are such clauses in the case of parents, grandparents, prospective dependency, dependent sisters, dependent brothers, any major child that has become of age but who for some reason or other may be incapacitated mentally or physically, and unable to earn his own living. If he were sound he would not receive a pension, supposing that he belonged to a pensioner, after the age of sixteen, and in the case of a girl after the age of seventeen. He might, however, be twenty-one and still be unable to earn his living, but in the discretion of the board he might be awarded a pension. In numberless cases of the kind discretionary powers are left with the board. No doubt there are some complaints in this regard, and my hon. friend is right in a measure. But if I have appreciated rightly the complaints that have come before me, most of them come within the category of disabilities on the part of men who claim a pension on that account, such disabilities having been incurred on service and not having been recognized by the board. There are a few cases of widows who claim a pension and are denied it because they married after the appearance of disability on the part of their husbands. Section 25, subsection 3, also caused a good deal of trouble in the matter of pre-existing disability in men who served in a theatre of actual war, undoubtedly the board have discretionary powers in many cases, and some of the complaints bear upon these matters.


William Alves Boys: Earlier in the session I brought to the attention of the minister one or two cases where pensions had been cancelled without notice to the persons receiving them. It seems to me that there should be a very definite provision requiring, in every case either of suspension or discontinuance of pension, that the person entitled should receive personal notice, either by personal service, or at all events by registered letter, of the intention to dispose of the pension in one or other of these two ways. The person should be given every opportunity during a certain number of days, say ten days or two weeks, to explain any charge that may be made. I have no doubt there are many cases, apart from the ones that came to my personal notice, and I feel sure that the minister will agree that no pension should be suspended or discontinued without notice to the person entitled and an opportunity given of presenting his or her case to the board.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am of the opinion that a notice is always served on the person concerned. I am very much surprised to hear
Supply-S.C.R.-Pensions

that the board decides to cancel pensions without notifying the pensioners. I think they do notify them. But what my hon. friend undoubtedly has in mind is that a certain length of time should be given the person whose pension is to be cancelled in order that he may submit some evidence to prove that the information before the board is faulty or unreliable.


William Alves Boys: I do not expect the minister to remember the matter, because too many of these things come to his notice for him to bear them all in mind. But earlier in the session I brought to his attention a case in my own town in which an officer came and got information locally. A widow was notified that her pension was discontinued and she never had an opportunity of putting in any evidence at all. Certain charges were made against her which she was prepared to meet. As far as I know her pension was restored, and I believe she is being paid it to-day. At least, I think so. But for a time it was absolutely cancelled and no opportunity was given her to submit any defence of any kind.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I agree with my hon. friend absolutely that in such cases they should be notified, say, a month ahead of the intention to discontinue their pensions in order that they might have sufficient time to make representations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions on account of the Fenian Raid, 1866-1870, *1.000.
Henri Sévérin Béland: I have onlv two pensioners.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions payable to militia men and on active service Northwest Rebellion, 1885, and general pensions, $42,700.
Henri Sévérin Béland: These pensions, the item of which I am bringing before the committee, are being paid by the Board of Pension Commissioners. The other pensions do not come under my department at all; they are statutory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, $83,700.
Robert James Manion: What is the reason for this increase of over $12,000? We are getting away from the war.


Henri Sévérin Béland: These estimates are prepared by the Pension board themselves. The expenses are their own and they have supplied
[Mr. Beland.l
me with an explanation. They cover clerical staff that was moved from the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment to the Pen-ion board proper. My hon. friend will remember that under the late administration the Pension board was brought under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and the whole of the Pension board's clerical staff, except the personal staff, was transferred from the Pension board to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. That was effective in 1921. The Pension board remained with a certain number of clerks for their own work-correspondence, investigations, and so on. During the year they asked for the transfer from our department of a few clerks to assist in their clerical work, to Which, of course, we agreed. There is really no increase. My hon. friend is aware that the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment decreased its staff in the city of Ottawa last year by 500 or 600. The items are made up as follows: permanent staff, 1 secretary; 1 accountant; 2 head clerks; 2 principal clerks; 1 senior messenger; 1 junior messenger; 3 senior clerk-stenographers; 3 clerk-stenographers; 1 junior stenographer. The total for the permanent staff is $26,880. The temporary staff consists of 10 medical advisers and 1 senior clerk-stenographer, total, $45,820. Then there are contingencies, $11,000; transportation and subsistence, stationery and supplies, unforeseen expenditures.


Robert James Manion: Is it likely that the maximum expenditure for the board has now been reached, or are we likely to have another increase for salaries next year? Has the minister any information on that subject?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no information on that. As I have said, they simply asked for the transfer from our department to theirs of a few more clerks, and we could not refuse them.


Robert James Manion: The amount is $12,700, so it is not only a question of a few clerks. I dp not suppose there would be any objection to the transfer of two or three clerks, but we are getting further away from the war, and while there may be occasion under the proposed amendments for some increased activity, no regulations were put in force last year to justify any such large increase in salaries.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is also my view that as we get further away from the war the work should decrease. But I do not think the Pension board had less work this last year than they had in the previous year.


Robert James Manion: They should not have had any more.

Supply-S.C .k.-Pensions


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not believe they had less. I would judge they had more.


Robert James Manion: Why?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Applications come in regularly. My hon. friend would be surprised if I told him the number of applications received and the number of cases dealt with by the board in one year.


Robert James Manion: Does the minister suggest that we were not receiving applications in previous years?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We were receiving them, but they were disposed of. The cases that now come up require a great deal more examination. At all events, the Pension board prepared this estimate; they say they require that clerical staff, and I have no doubt they are perfectly straight about it.


Robert James Manion: I am not questioning that at all. The minister seems to take the attitude that he should not know anything about this estimate. I admit that so far as administration of the act goes the minister has no control over the board, but so far as the executive work goes he is the minister in charge and is the only one from whom we can get information regarding any of these things. So I think it is up to him to be able to furnish information respecting any of the items involved in this vote.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I realize that. I do not think I have indicated any desire to withhold information. The fact is that the board have asked the department for five or six more clerks-I do not know exactly how many; we have transferred these clerks from some of our branches, and instead of being paid by us they are now paid by the Pension board.


Arthur Edward Ross: Can the minister tell us how these ten medical advisers are disposed? What are the departments represented-medicine, surgery and so on?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not know exactly; the board select their own medical advisers. I think the men who are there now are the same men who were there two or three years ago. I do not know the names of more than three or four of them.


Arthur Edward Ross: This is a matter to which I have already made some reference. It seems to me that these men who are close to the Pension board should be the biggest men obtainable, having regard to the nature of their duties. I was wondering if the minister could tell the committee what medical departments they represent?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have not any particular knowledge as to their attainments, but I believe that so far as some of them are concerned, they enjoy a very good reputation. It is up to the board to select their own men. They have surgeons, internists, oculists, genito-urinary specialists, chest specialists, and so on.


Arthur Edward Ross: There has been a little criticism, quietly, that some of them are rather young and without the experience that one would naturally expect in advisers of such an important department as the Pension board.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I entirely agree with my hon. friend. I was not responsible for their appointment.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: How much are they paid?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Each is paid $4,500.


Alexander William Chisholm: Do they devote all their time to the work?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Mr. LEWIS:: How many of them live in Ottawa?


Henri Sévérin Béland: All of them.'


Arthur John Lewis: Does the minister mean to say that these ten medical men devote all their time to that work in connection with the Pension board?


Henri Sévérin Béland: They do.


Arthur John Lewis: They are not practising on the side at all?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, none of these are.


Robert James Manion: Does this item contain the salaries of the Pension commissioners themselves?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, that is statutory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act by providing,-
(1) That in any case where an application for insurance under the said act has been received, and the applicant has died prior to the delivery to him of the policy of insurance, the approval of the application by the proper officer and the receipt of the initial premium shall be deemed to have been sufficient to put the insurance into force, unless it can be shown that the application was fraudulent, and any insurance
Returned Soldiers' Insurance
[Stage Direction]
moneys which would have been payable had the policy been delivered to the applicant shall now be made payable, subject to a deduction of the amount of premium due from the date of application to the date of death.
(2) That any applications which were rejected prior to 1st July, 1922, under any conditions set forth in section 2 of the amending act of 1922, or the schedule thereto, shall be reviewed, except in cases where the applicant is suffering or has become impaired as a result of self-inflicted wounds or immoral conduct, or where the application was fraudulent, and provision be made to give the right on such review to any applicant now living to insure, and if the applicant has died, the amount of insurance for which he applied shall now be made payable, less the amount which would have be£n due as premium from the date of application to the date of death, notwithstanding that no effective insurance contract was completed, and provided that the application was approved.
He said: This resolution is for the purpose of carrying out the recommendation of the loyal commission respecting soldiers' insurance. Clause 1 applies to a few cases where the application for insurance had been filed with the department, had been approved and the premium paid, but the soldier died before the policy was delivered to him. It was held by the Finance department that in such cases no contract existed and the insurance money was not paid to the soldier's dependents. There are only six or seven such cases in all. This is to provide that when the application was regularly approved and the premium paid-
William Alves Boys: Prior to death? The resolution does not state that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is what it means.


William Alves Boys: The bill will?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is to cover these cases where the application was received and approved and the premium paid but where the soldier died before the policy was delivered.


Robert James Manion: May I ask the minister if these two amendments to the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act cover all the recommendations made by the royal commission respecting soldiers' insurance?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Absolutely.
Mr.	MANION:	All of them?Mr.	BELAND:	Yes.Mr.	POWER:	Would	the	minister explain what is meant in clause 1 by saying "unless it can be shown that the application was fraudulent?" Would he give us some examples of what	would	be	considered a
fraudulent application?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It might be signed by another man in his name.


Charles Gavan Power: W7ould that be the only
case?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no other cases
in mind at the moment.


Charles Gavan Power: Would it be such a case
as this? The applicant is dying; he has
beeen warned by his physician that he is likely to die within two or three days or a week and he sends in his application for insurance. Would that be considered a fraudulent application?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


Mr. HANSON:: Is it intended to cover
cases where the application had been passed on before death?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Clause 2 of the resolution
covers that. I stated when I gave notice of this resolution two or three days ago that there was a slight error made in the drafting of clause 2. The last line should not have read "provided that the application was approved' but "provided that such applicant lived for a sufficient period of time to admit of the approval of his application by the proper officer of the department in the ordinary course of procedure."
Perhaps a word of explanation is necessary in this connection. The intention when this Soldiers' Insurance Act was passed by parliament was that every returned soldier who made an application for insurance could insure, in other words, that every soldier should be insurable if he made application. I think in 1921, and especially in the month of January, 1922, some restrictions were made and enforced by the Pension board, which has the administration of this act together with the Minister of Finance, to the effect that the insurance money in the case of an application not being approved would not be payable, and also that certain applications on the part of men who were seriously ill of an illness which was not due to war service, and who moreover had no dependents, should not be entertained by the board or approved by the Minister of Finance. Hon. gentlemen will remember that during the session of 1922 we amended the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act to provide a certain schedule which sets out the conditions under which an application for insurance can be refused. That amendment was passed last year. The Returned Soldiers' Act was passed originally in 1920 and was made valid for the period of two years, so on the 1st September, 1922, it was coming to an end, but last year we extended the provisions of the act for one year making it applicable to the 1st September

S.C.R. Act Amendment
1923, with certain restrictions proposed in a schedule that was annexed to the act. But now we contend, and I think it is only fair, that all the men, no matter what physical condition they may have been in who filed their applications before the 1st July, 1922, that is the time the act was amended with the schedule, should be insurable and in case of death their dependents will receive the insurance money. I asked the department to supply me with a report in this connection and they gave me the following figures which, perhaps, are not absolutely needed in this instance but which may be of interest to hon. members:	Total number of policies issued as of March 31st, 1923, 19,516, with a value of 846,864,500. Total number of death claims as of March 31st, 1923, 514. I may say en passant that this is not a very large rate. The value of these claims is $1,622,500. The total number of claims settled under section 10, insurance cancelled by award of pension, was 109.


William Alves Boys: Have you a statement of the premiums received for the policies that were paid?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, I have not that information.	[DOT]


Charles Gavan Power: Has the minister a statement of the applications refused?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, I will give that in a minute if my hon. friend will wait. Now, as to the number affected by the bill which I am going to introduce, I may state that the total number of cases that will be subject to review under the proposed legislation is 71. This has reference to the second part of the resolution, to applications which were not approved. The 71 applications are divided as follows: Applications of those who have died 35; applications with dependents still living but seriously ill, 36; making a total of 71 with a liability of $233,500. It is represented that these men had, under the original act, the privilege of insuring their lives only by making application, without any medical examination and regardless of their physical condition. Well, 71 of those cases have been refused, and I am introducing a bill to provide for the honouring of those claims.


The CHAIRMAN:: Have you a copy of
the amendment?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no amendment.


George Newcombe Gordon: There was an amendment read to paragraph 2.


Henri Sévérin Béland: As far as the resolution
is concerned?


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I must have the bill then.


George Newcombe Gordon: Is it in the bill.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is in the bill.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Beland thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 203, in respect of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DEPARTMENT OF SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Act, and to provide:-
1.	That the power to make regulations for the constitution of medical boards, including appeal boards, with such powers as may be deemed expedient, be repealed, and provision be made to give the minister power, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to make regulations for appeals from decisions as to the right of ex-members of the forces to treatment with pay and allowances, and for that purpose to designate the review and appeal tribunals to be constituted under the proposed amendments to the Pension Act.
2.	That the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the minister, appoint an ex-member of the forces to be an Official Soldiers' Adviser in each unit or district of the department, at such salary or remuneration as may be decided in each case, with prescribed duties.
3.	That the minister shall have power to appoint a person or persons to hear and receive evidence on oath in respect of any matter pertaining to the department or procedure of the department.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Henri Sévérin Béland: Under the Pension Act
resolution which is now on the order paper it will be seen that a certain number of appeal boards will be constituted in different units throughout the country. The Pension Act, however, only deals with pensions. It is desired also to provide appeals for those ex-members of the force who are seeking treatment with pay and allowances. As hon. members are aware a number of men apply for treatment and are denied treatment with pay and allowance by the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment board. As the right has been granted to appeal from a decision of the Pension board it is also proposed that the right shall be granted, in cases where treatment is denied, to appeal from the decision of headquarters to the boards that will be constituted under the Pension Act.
374G

S.C.R. Act Amendment
The second portion of the resolution provides for the appointment of a soldier adviser in every unit of the department, thus following the example which has been set in England. In every one of the thirty units in that country there is a soldier adviser who is paid by the government to give advice to the men who desire to appeal, that is, to examine their claim, and to advise them as to the propriety of appealing or not appealing, and to present their case before the board. In other words to represent' them. This has been asked by the men generally throughout Canada and it has been recommended by the royal commission.
The third part of the resolution is a provision to give power to these investigators of the department to receive evidence on oath. This provision exists for the Pension board. In the Pension Act there is a clause, I do not remember which one, which provides that the investigators or the examiners of the Pension board can receive evidence on oath. We have numberless investigations to make in connection with treatment and with pensions. The officials of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment have no power to swear a person who gives evidence in these cases, and this provision is designed to prevent fraud as much as possible.


William Alves Boys: How many appeal tribunals is it intended to appoint? One for each military district?


Henri Sévérin Béland: One for each departmental unit.


William Alves Boys: And I suppose the members of the tribunal are to be paid salaries?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Oh, yes.


William Alves Boys: How many units altogether?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Nine units.


William Alves Boys: And how many men will there be in each appeal tribunal?


Henri Sévérin Béland: There will be three men.


William Alves Boys: There will be twenty-seven appointments to be made in pursuance of this provision.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


William Alves Boys: At what proposed salary?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That will come under the Pension Act Bill. If my hon. friend desires to discuss it now, I can give him the information.


William Alves Boys: I just asked as to the proposed salary.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The salary for the men who will serve on the appeal boards is not fixed. I did not intend to make that position a permanent one. I had in view-and I think it is also the recommendation of the royal commission-that these men should serve part time, and that they should be paid so much per day when they are called upon to sit on a certain number of appeals that are brought in by the unit. When a number of appeals has accumulated, the members of that board should be called together and will discharge their duties during one, two or three days in a month, or more, as the number of appeals would warrant, and they will be paid so much per day. We thought that-it would be a good deal more economical than to pay a regular salary and have these men devote the whole of their time to the work. It is presumed that during the first six months, or perhaps during the first year, the number of appeals will be very large, but after one year the number will decrease considerably. Then it is provided in the bill that we can contract the appeal board to the number which will be required; in other words, to extend the territorial limits of these appeal boards. Some of the men who were heard by the royal commission submitted the view that there should be one in every unit and were very insistent upon it. Others expressed the view that, perhaps, if we had three or four all over Canada it would be sufficient. But the commission has recommended specifically that in each unit there should be an appeal board and I think my hon. friend from the Yukon (Mr. Black), if I mistake not, referred to the great patronage that would develop therefrom. I can assure my hon. friend that I do not see it in the same light. My idea is not to exercise any patronage in this regard. The aim will be to secure three outstanding men in each one of those cities where the unit is located, who would commend themselves to public confidence and to the confidence of the returned men generally, regardless of their political leanings. I may say that the royal commission itself contained one Liberal, one Independent, and one Conservative.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who was the Conservative?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Dr. McKeown.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, no.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Has my hon. friend any doubt about it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I have.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Entirely wrong.

S.C.R. Act Amendment


Richard Burpee Hanson: Liberal-Conservative.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is an ameliorated Conservative.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid there is simply amelioration and no conservatism.


Henri Sévérin Béland: If my hon friend knew of the protests I have received from my Liberal friends because I did not make the appointments strictly Liberal, he would agree with me.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Has the minister considered the matter of having the appointmen! of the official soldier advisers made by the Civil Service Commission? It seems to me, at least, that there should be some good reason for having them appointed otherwise than by the Civil Service Commission.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does my hon. friend suggest they should be appointed by that commission?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have not the remotest objection.


William F. Carroll: Have they power to appoint temporary officials?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Give them power to do it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No objection whatever. I would be pleased.


Robert James Manion: Is it the intention to proceed with the bills to-morrow? If so, we would require to get copies early in the morning because we want to look at them.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, it is not the intention, because they would not be distributed.


Robert James Manion: I hope my hon. friend will see that these bills are distributed early, because we would like to see them some time in advance of their being taken up in the House.


William Alves Boys: As to the procedure before the appeal boards, will the boards merely review the evidence that appears on the files, or will [DOT] they themselves hear evidence?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is provided that the man himself has the right to appear personally before that board.


William Alves Boys: Before the appeal board?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, and he may submit whatever evidence he likes which is not already on the file, and the soldier adviser in this connection will be most useful to us. In that connection I would point out that I undertake before this House to appoint the soldier adviser that will be indicated to me by the returned soldiers' associations.


Robert James Manion: That is recommended by the commission, is it not?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think it is. The Civil Service Commission will suit me absolutely, if it suits the House. This is an appointment made by the soldiers themselves-their own representative.


Charles Gavan Power: Is the soldier adviser to be paid fees or salary?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I presume these men will receive a retainer of so much a month. I presume the adviser will be a lawyer. That, of course, is in the hands of the soldiers themselves. If they should appoint a lawyer, we should provide, *in accordance with the number of pensioners in the unit, what should be a fair monthly remuneration for him for whatever time he gives to the work of advising the soldiers generally.


Charles Gavan Power: There is a reference to the official soldier adviser in each unit or district ; what is the distinction between unit and district?


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is a distinction.


Charles Gavan Power: So that the intention of the minister is to appoint a soldier adviser in each unit? If I remember rightly Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia are all one unit?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: So that the man from Prince Edward Island, in order to have his case properly prepared, would have to consult his official adviser in Halifax?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: Would it not be well to have an official adviser in Charlottetown or St. John, if it comes under the same unit? I would make that suggestion to the minister, owing to the difficulty of the men communieat-ing with the adviser under the other arrangement. I think the minister should look into that. We have the same situation in Quebec. We happen to be under the control of the headquarters in Montreal. It is extremely difficult and inconvenient for pensioners in Quebec to have to consult the adviser or somebody in Montreal in regard to their pensions.
I would suggest to the minister that, in cases where applicants are far removed from the headquarters an adviser should be appointed in some more convenient place. This seems to be a good job; let us give everybody a chance.	'
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Beland thereupon



S74S COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Pension Act Amendment moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 204, to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELAND moved the adjournment of the House.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What business has been arranged for to-morrow?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I presume it was understood by the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Finance to-day that we would move to go into Supply in order to afford the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Baxter) an opportunity of discussing a certain matter in connection with the Post Office Department. If we have time we will take up the second readings of certain bills on the order paper, a resolution in connection with the Canada Shipping Act, standing in the name of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; a resolution in connection with the Dominion Lands Act, standing in the name of the Minister of the Interior; a resolution in connection with the harbour of Three Rivers, standing in the name of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, a resolution in connection with the Militia Pension Act standing in the name of the Acting Minister of National Defence; also a resolution in connection with the Pension Act, standing in the name of the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.


Robert James Manion: Is the minister going to endeavour to get this work of his finished this week?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I hope to be able tomorrow to introduce the Pension Act amendment and to dispose of all those bills this week, if possible, by Thursday. I think we have discussed them, except the Pension Act amendment, pretty thoroughly. We could discuss the Pension Act on Thursday. I wili try to arrange matters with that aim in view.


Robert James Manion: I hope the minister will endeavour to do that. A number of hon. members wish to go out of town for a short time. They have been staying over day after day hoping that this would go on. They stayed over last week, and now they are staying over this week. They would like to get away at the beginning of next week, and 1 hope the minister will do everything in his power to get this through.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I could accelerate matters if I were permitted to pass the resolution in connection with the Pension Act. I sent the bill to the Printing bureau this afternoon, and I hope to get it to-morrow.


Robert James Manion: I do not think there would be any objection to the House passing the resolution. WTe could discuss it on second reading.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I cannot withdraw the
motion for adjournment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Can I get the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the motion? Motion withdrawn.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend The Pension Act, chapter 43 of the statutes of 1919, and the amending acts, and to provide,-
1.	That enactments be made respecting pensions for military services rendered during the war and after the war, which shall be made retroactive to the first day of September, 1919, and all cases in which pension has been refused, reduced, discontinued or underrated by reason of the fact that the proposed legislation was not included in the Pension Act shall be subject to review by the Board of Pension Commissioners, and on such review pension shall be granted, increased or continued as from the date or dates it would have been granted, increased or continued had such proposed legislation been in force when such refusal, reduction or discontinuance or underrating was made effective.
2.	That the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice may appoint a District Review Board for each of the nine districts of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and a Federal Appeal Board for Canada, to review appeals from decisions of the Board of Pension Commissioners ; and that provision be made for the tenure of office and qualifications of the members of such boards, and for the payment of their remuneration or salaries out of any unappropriated moneys of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
3.	That the Governor in Council may make such rules and regulations as are deemed necessary to carry out and enforce the provisions of the proposed legislation.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Black: Is it proposed to
make the decisions before these district review boards, if favourable to the applicant, final, or are they only intermediary? Must applications go to the Pension board, be refused, then go to the district review board and then, in any event, go to the federal appeal board again? Will these boards not have power to deal finally if dealing favourably to the applicant?

Canada Shipping Act


Henri Sévérin Béland: All appeals, after theyl
have been dealt with by the district appeal! board, must come back to the Board of Pen-j sion Commissioners. In the case of a more| favourable decision rendered by the district-appeal board, the pension board will carry it out; but should they refuse to carry it out, it will automatically go to the federal appeal board for confirmation. Then the Board of Pension Commissioners shall be bound by the decision of the appeal board. In the case that the Board of Pension Commissioners carries out the decision of the district appeal board, the decision is final. In every case where the decision of the district appeal board is not more favourable to the applicant than the decision appealed against, it will automatically, through the Board of Pension Commissioners, go to the federal appeal board.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Beland thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 205, to amend the Pension Act.


William F. Carroll: Shall we get copies of
the bill before it comes up for second reading?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Beland the House adjourned at 11 p.m.
Tuesday, June 12, 1923