1923-06-13

BIOLOGICAL BOARD ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 206, to amend the Biological Board Act.
He said:	The Biological board, as
it consists to-day has two members appointed by the government, and one representative of each university that carries on biological researches. The purpose of this bill is to add three members, one representing the Department of Marine and Fisheries and two others representing the fisheries industries both in the East and in the West.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1. How many bushels of wheat were received in the
public elevator at Quebec and exported from that port in the years 1914-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22?
2. How many bushels of other grains were received
in the public	elevator at Quebec	and exported from
that port in	the same years?	
Hon. Mr.	LAPOINTE:	
	Wheat	Wheat
1. Year	received	exported1914 ..	.. .. 75,174	Nil1915 ..	.. .. 2,519	Nil1916 ..	.. .. 1,162,066	1,137,4611917 ..	.. .. 9,764	Nil1918 ..	.. .. 3,257,368	2,936,1041919 ..	.. .. 3.943,393	3.606,5631920 ..	.. .. 113,780	513,0281921 ..	.. .. 1,265,967	1,243,2851922 ..	.. .. 2,009,207	1,810,911Other grains	Other grains2. Year	received	exported1914 ..	.. .. 639,556	Nil1915 ..	.. .. 264,739	Nil1916 ..	.. .. 913,612	638,7421917 ...	.. .. 941,277	Nil1918 ..	.. .. 2,365,860	1,255,2601919 ..	.. .. 249,430	69.3521920 ..	.. .. 337,006	Nil1921 ..	.. .. 4,345,277	2,838,8931922 ..	.. .. 1,666,133	138,723


NAVAL BASE AT SINGAPORE
Mr. MACLEAN (York):: 
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The government has no
information with respect to the several questions asked.
WELLAND SHIP CANAL Mr. CHURCH:
1.	What amount of money has been spent and what work completed to date on the new Welland Ship Canal?
2.	What contracts are being undertaken this year?
3.	How much of the total work yet remains to be finished?
4.	Is the work being done by contract or day labour, and will the Government in future allow tenderers to use their own plant on contracts?
5.	When is it c*xpected that the new Welland Ship Canal will be open for traffic, and will the work be expedited ?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 
Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Radio direction finding:	Yes. Sound
ranging: Yes.
2.	Radio direction finding: Yes. The Canadian government erected radio direction finding stations at Cape Race, Canso, and Che-bucto Head in 1918. They have been in constant operation 24 hours a day since they were opened. Cape Race is 21 miles from the reef on which the Marvale struck. Sound ranging: No.
3.	Radio direction finding: Answered by No. 1 and No. 2. Sound ranging: No sound ranging stations of the type mentioned are in practical operation as an aid to navigation in any country of the world. The department is keeping in touch with the development of these systems and does not consider it would be justified in recommending any expenditure in this reference at the moment.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY-TIES
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Were tenders called in 1923 for a supply of ties to the Grand Trunk Railway, such ties being for use in or to come from the Matapedia Valley in the Province of Quebec?
2.	If so, who were the tenderers, and at what rates?
3.	Who obtained the contract and why?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: I think on reflection my hon. friend wall agree with me that the detailed information asked for in this question is such that it would not be in the interest of the Canadian National Railways that it should be made public. That is my answer.


GREAT LAKES-DIVERSION OF WATERS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Have any compla nts been received from the Donrnion Marine Association, or harbour commissions on the Great Lakes in reference to the illegal diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes through the Chicago drainage canal?
2.	Is the Government aware that this diversion of the waters of the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico is having disastrous effects on the carrying capacity of ships and on the levels of the lower lakes and the St. Lawrence?
3.	What does the government propose to do in the matter ?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes, but not recently.
2.	The government believes that the diversion at Chicago has injuriously affected the navigable capacity of the connecting channels of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence river.
3.	The matter is under consideration.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	(a) How many public terminal elevators in Fort William and Port Arthur ha.ve private terminal elevators which are owned by the same company, or practically the same company, or whose shareholders and executives are interlocked and associated in both enterprises; and how many of these said elevators have facilities for direct connections for transferring grain from the private elevator to the public?
(b)	Has any direct transferring between a public and private elevator ever been done, or reported to have been done?
(c)	Is the practice being carried on at the present time?
(d)	By whose authority was the transferring, if any. done?
(e)	Does .the Canada Grain Act not state that a private and a public elevator shall have no physical connection?
2.	Is all the grain at a terminal point, as provided by the Canada Grain Act, officially weighed in and out of all elevators?
3.	Are all elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur weighed up annually as provided by the Canada Grain Act? If not, why not?
4.	Does the Inspection Department inspect grain and issue certificates according to section 27 of the Grain Act?
5.	(a) In the loading of grain on boats at waterfront elevators situated at Port Arthur and Fort William, what method of inspection is carried on by the Inspection Department?
(b)	Are samples taken from the belt in the tunnels of the elevator, or are the samples taken from the running stream of grain when it is running into the boat, or is it taken both in the tunnel of the elevator and from the running stream?
(c)	In the case of a difference between the sample taken at the tunnel and the one taken from the running stream into the boat, which sample is considered official?
6.	(a) Does the Inspection Department determine the amount of excess moisture that is contained in tough, damp and wot grain, and place same on each certificate issued for off-grade grain?
(b)	Does the terminal elevator take out the excess moisture above normal, when drying grain as per their tariff?
(c)	Are moisture tests made before grain is dried in public terminal elevators to ascertain what shrinkage or loss will be charged the owner of the grain by the elevator performing the drying? If not, how is the shrinkage arrived at?
(d)	Does the Inspection Department verify and see that terminal elevators take out all excess moisture over normal on gra n they are drying according to their tariff?
7.	What authority does the Inspection Department demand of a terminal elevator as to ownership or authorized agency, before any parcel can be loaded out; and is inspection made accordingly to ensure that the quality of grain or grain by-products ordered out by the owner or authorized agent is up to that received by the elevator from the owner?
8.	Does the Inspection Department issue and charge a fee for inspecting grain or grain by-products that do not represent the quality as ordered out by the owner or authorized agent?
9.	If contract wheat contains one to two per cent of small and shrivelled wheat, does the Inspection
Naval Base at Singapore

Department make this car a "clean to clean," or do they put one or two per cent dockage, as the case may be, on this car?
10.	What are the charges levied by the government for inspection and weighing grain in each consecutive year since 1912?
11.	Is grain arriving at a public terminal elevator in the Western Inspection Division, carrying a grade certificate and binned under government supervision, as provided for by the Canada Grain Act, subject to another inspection charge on being loaded out? If so, why the duplicate inspection?
12.	Are the weighing and inspection charges based on the actual cost of the service rendered, and how is this determined ?
13.	Is the owner of grain, the grade of which is in dispute with the Inspection Department and placed for survey, entitled to a sealed portion of official sample the survey is determined on? If so, from whom does he obtain same?


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS CANADIAN MERCANTILE MARINE
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 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 way recommendations as to sale or other disposition of said vessels.


SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT VANCOUVER EMPLOYEES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: I should like to supply some information that was asked for the other day by the hon. member for St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert (Mr. MacLaren) in connection with some employees whose services had been dispensed with in Vancouver. I have a statement from the secretary of the department to the effect that the contention of my hon. friend is right that the names of Messrs. Cruit, Flewin, Irvine and Beattie should have been included in the original answer. They were left out through an error on the part of the record clerks who prepared the information for our office. It is to be noted, however, that these names were not actually struck off our pay roll until the 30th April and that they were given notice on the 31st January, not on the 28th February as stated by my hon. friend. That is probably the reason for the error.


NAVAL BASE AT SINGAPORE
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has not
any information as to what happened in parliament in England.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The House has the report and it is open to any hon. member to examine the report. The government has received no information as to whether any such statement was ever made in parliament.


Arthur Meighen: The question is: "Is it a fact that this was approved at the conference?" The government has the information as to whether or not that is a fact, and the question whether it is contained in the report does not matter. The government is asked a question in the House and should answer it, because it has the full information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The report
of the conference has been laid on the Table of the House, and it is open to any member to examine it. I will be pleased to lay it on the Table again, if desired.


Arthur Meighen: The blue books are laid on the Table, but that does not absolve the government from giving an answer to a question regarding them, much less does it excuse the government for giving the wrong answer.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I would like the House to have an opportunity before the session closes, of discussing in committee what took place at that conference.


PUBLIC DEBT-MATURING OBLIGATIONS
Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: I would like the Minister of Finance to state if the government will provide an opportunity, before the

Alien Enemy Property
end of the session, to discuss the question of meeting our obligations which are due this year, before next session. I understand nearly $200,000,000 will have to be paid before
next session.
Hon. W. S, FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :	I think on a motion to go into
Supply is the proper occasion for such a discussion, and the hon. member will have opportunity to discuss this matter then. I do not think it requires any special order.


ALIEN ENEMY PROPERTY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I observed in the press some days ago, but made no mention of it pending the return of the minister concerned, that a section of the government had gone down to Washington with a considerable retinue. There were the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp) and the Hon. William Pugsley.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is he?


Arthur Meighen: He was in the retinue.
There were also Mr. Mulvey, Under Secretary of State, Mr. Newcombe, Deputy Minister of Justice, and some others. Could the Minister of Justice report to us results commensurate with the size of the delegation?


Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) :: If the House wishes that I should
state the object of our visit and the result, I will do so. The object of the visit to Washington was to press the settlement of a claim that our government has against the government of the United States in reference to the seizure of certain properties seized by the Custodian of Alien Enemy Property of the United States. In 1918 and 1919 the Custodian of Alien Enemy Property of the United States government proceeded to seize certain certificates of shares and bonds of Canadian companies which were owned by enemies residing in Germany, which certificates' and bonds were then deposited with different institutions in the United States. Our own custodian, proceeding under our war measures act. had also seized some, if not all, of the same securities. Some of the companies which had been ordered by the American courts to pay their dividend to the Alien Property Custodian paid some of the dividends and then ceased to pay, on account of the vesting orders which had been issued by our
own courts. We tried to arrive at a settlement "a l'amiable." The Alien Property Custodian of the United States government came to Canada. The hon. ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) was then our custodian. I understand that he had some conferences with the representatives of the American government, and Mr. Mulvey was a party to the conferences. The question under discussion was whether we had any right in those securities, or whether they were to be left in possession of the American government. It was important that the dividends should be paid or deposited in the hands of one of the two governments. It was agreed that, pending the discussion, the dividends should be paid to the American government, and that the question of law should be decided by an arbitrator or by a judge of Canada or of the United States. Some of the Canadian companies continued to pay the dividends to the Alien Property Custodian of the United States. After a certain time that very question which was in doubt and discussed between the two governments was decided by the American court, at the request of the American officer, in reference to certain certificates of American companies which had been sequestered by the Alien Property Custodian of the Imperial government, and which certificates were deposited in England. The question was debated and decided in favour of the American government. Taking advantage of that decision, our attorneys tried to induce the American government to turn over to the Canadian government those certificates and bonds. Proceedings have been going on for gome years-since 1920. After consultation with our attorneys we were advised that it would be preferable that we should try and arrive at a settlement with the American government without litigation, and we were advised that if we had the opportunity of meeting the President of the United States, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General of that country, perhaps, after those three decisions-there were three decisions on that very same point'-the American gov -rnment would consent, without arbitration and without litigation, to hand over thos'e securities to our government. Accordingly our custodian, the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Copp), Mr. Newcombe, Mr. Mulvey, and myself decided to go to Washington. Hon. Mr. Pugsley was not one of our party. We met the Secretary of State of the United States, who declared that he was perfectly willing to turn over to Canada th securities mentioned but thought the

Alien Enemy Property
President would be governed in the matter by the advice of the Attorney General, and that the only trouble in the way was the fact that after the orders had been rendered by the American courts, vesting those securities in the Alien Property Custodian of the United States, they did not see how that officer could take it upon himself to turn those properties over to Canada. We answered that we should invoke the three judgments which were rendered by the American courts at the request of the American authorities, and we did not see that there was any necessity of litigation any more, since the case had been decided in favour of the American government and, consequently, in our favour. The same objection was repeated that there was a distinction also, because registration had been made of those same stocks in favour of the American officer, and they were of opinion that it was necessary that a judgment should be rendered by some tribunal. We had the advantage of meeting the President and repeating the same argument. We were told that the American government were heartily disposed to liquidate the situation as promptly as possible, and that they would be willing to expedite any case that might be instituted by our government before any of the courts of the United States. We suggested that we would prefer to proceed before one of our courts as the American government did in proceeding before one of their judges. Later on, after those two interviews, a conference took place between the Assistant Attorney General and our representative, Mr. Conboy, and it was then agreed that to expedite matters, if we were to institute one or two cases in Canada, assigning one or two companies to appear before such court to be instructed to deliver to the Canadian government certificates for those same stocks, the American government would appear, so that the judgment would be binding upon the American government and upon the companies. This we found most, satisfactory.
As to the bonds, there may be some distinction to be made. Certificates of stocks are only evidence of property, while a bond is something by itself. We contended all the same that no distinction should be made. There is also the question of dividends which were paid to the American government. Our intention is to proceed, as I said, in one or two cases, to have the principle decided of the property in the stocks. If the judgment goes in our favour, necessarily we shall be entitled to dividends paid to the American government. As to the bonds, something

has to be done. We are now considering what is to be done, and when and how it should be done. On the whole we consider that we have accomplished something, and we hope that after a comparatively short delay, we shall get the securities to which we are entitled.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
[Stage Direction]
Loan to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine Limited, repayable on demand with interest at a rate to be fixed by the Governor in Council, upon such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may determine, and to be applied in the payment of deficits in operation of the company and the vessels under the company's control during the year ending March 31, 1924, $1,500,000.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) : Last night I promised to bring a statement down for the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). I had to send to Montreal for the material and I expect it some time during the afternoon. If the discussion on this item goes on, I should be glad to give the information to my hon. friend a little later on.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I should like to ask an explanation from the minister regarding a statement made yesterday evening. I do not in any way question the accuracy of the statement. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) said that it was a fact that the Canadian Government Railways paid the ships of the Merchant Marine, I think it was $2.80 a ton to carry coal from Sydney to Montreal, while other ships were carrying coal for $1.10 a ton. Is there any explanation?


George Perry Graham: I intimated last night that I thought the hon. member for Lunenburg must have been misinformed. The rate was SI .50.


Mr. DUFF:: Might I say that the hon. member for Lunenburg was not misinformed. If the hon. member will turn up the Auditor General's report-I forget the page, but I will get it

I can prove conclusively that my statement was absolutely correct.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The hon. member for Lunenburg referred last night to an item of $96,122, reserve for doubtful debts and claims. That is an item on which we should have a little explanation. Has the Canadian Government. Merchant Marine been in the habit of running accounts or giving credit for goods transported? Is it unable to collect some os those accounts at the present time?

Supply-Merchant Marine


George Perry Graham: I cannot give my hon. friend the item offhand; but, of course, in a business of this magnitude, there are some claims outstanding. I know in my own business, when I am making a statement, I set aside a certain amount for doubtful claims that may be paid hereafter or that may turn out to be worthless.


Milton Neil Campbell: I have never known any transportation company, railway or steamship, to take any chances on cLaims for freight. 1 understood these were always collected before the goods were delivered and in many cases before the goods were received for transportation. I can hardly understand the Canadian Government Merchant Marine running monthly or weekly accounts for freight charges, if that is what this means.


George Perry Graham: In many accounts for transportation, three or four different companies are interested because of interchange of freight, settlement of rates; and this is a reserve amount put aside to meet any of those settlements that might be unsatisfactory. This might not mean that the private individual had not paid his freight to some transportation company. .


Mr. McBRIDE:: I do not think there has been any other question asked as often in this House as the question: Why cannot the Canadian Government Merchant Marine be made to pay? This question has been repeated again; and again I might say that I was a little disappointed yesterday evening when the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) took his seat and, in my opinion, did not make even an attempt to explain the matter.


William Duff: It is pretty hard to satisfy everybody.


Thomas George McBride: I claim to have had ju*t a little experience in connection with steamboat work, and I have made the statement at least twice on the floor of this House that the smaller boats up to, say, 5,000 tons will never pay. I think it is incumbent upon me to explain that statement and show why, in my opinion, they will not pay. I am not criticizing the building of the boats; I am not criticizing the workmanship; nor am I criticizing the captains and the crews that operate these boats. But I do criticize the man who was responsible for the designing of them; I criticize the architect. I do not know who he is; I have never heard his name; but in my opinion it is evident that he never had any practical experience so far as freight boats are concerned. He may be a first-class architect from the standpoint of
passenger steamers, but freight boats are au entirely different proposition.
Let us consider the construction of some of these freight boats of 5,000 tons or less-I am referring to those that I have seen. They have a fair, clean run behind, but from the centre they taper off more in the fashion of passenger boats towards the bow. A freight boat should carry its beam well forward to the bow; the boats to which I am referring are less than five thousand tons and ought to have had anywhere from ten to fifteen feet more of a beam to give them carrying capacity. If that wrere the case they could carry at least a third more freight than they are able to take as they are, and it would not interfere with their speed to any extent. In a steamer that makes from eight to ten knots, it does not affect the speed to any appreciable extent to have a blunt bow, and this affords added carrying capacity. These boats are not built in that way; they are more like passenger boats. Then their engines and boilers are placed in the centre, which should not be. The engines should be placed in a freight boat as near the stem as it. is possible to get them. The boilers should be placed in the stem of the boat, taking up as little room as possible, just giving the firemen space enough in which to work. The firemen do not require more than room enough to enable them to attend to the boilers. In the bow of the boat there should be a bulkhead or watertight compartment, or tanks to hold water, so that when the boat is running light the tanks can be filled to prevent the ship from pounding in the sea. A boat in which the machinery is situated in the stern must have some ballast in the bow, because if she pounds in the sea she is bound to do herself material damage. These boats are not constructed in that manner. The centre of a freight boat of this size should be left entirely free for freight, but, as I have already pointed out, the machinery in these particular steamers is all in the centre. There should be two hatches instead of, as is the case with many of these boats, the whole decks covered with hatches. I think the architect sacrificed utility to beauty. Undoubtedly the boats do look well at sea; but that is not the main consideration in freight steamers. These boats should have carrying capacity, which is not provided in these particular steamers. As regards the boilers, any person who has had any practical experience in connection with machinery will admit that a boiler in a freight boat should have a lead anywhere from 25 to 35 per cent over the engines, for the simple reason that when inferior coal is being used the firemen
Supply-Merchant Marine

can still keep up steam. And, besides, it is much easier on the boiler. These boats have not got that feature; at least I have not seen it in any of those that I have looked over. I consider the boiler of a steamer the most important part of its equipment. When you have to force a boiler to keep up steam by forced draft, you are apt to have trouble with the combustion chamber, and the probability is that you will spring a leak. On getting into port with such boilers the first thing that has to be done is to draw fire and cool off the boiler, and it takes anywhere from 36 to 4S hours to cool one of those large boilers. Furthermore, it requires a considerable time to get up steam to do justice to the boilers. During all that time the boat is lying in port and expenses are running up. I am of the opinion, therefore, that it is a big drawback to these boats that the boilers have not a lead over the engines. The disadvantage would not be so great if they could use oil fuel, I am referring to boats that are using coal. There is another consideration, too. If the boilers had the lead I suggest, the boats could use slack instead of good coal. The firemen would have no difficulty in keeping up steam with slack coal, which is about one-third the price of first-class coal, and in that way a great saving could be made.
It has been suggested that these steamers should be provided with passenger accommodation. In my opinion they are not built for that purpose and never will be a success as passenger carriers. There is no doubt in my mind about that; and if any more money were invested to provide for passenger accommodation on these steamers it would be only so much more money thrown away.
Taking these things into consideration, I believe that the best thing that the government could do would be to get rid of the smaller boats as best they can. We have got into this mess and we must get out of it. But I want the' House to understand that the government is not the only one that has got into difficulties in connection with shipbuilding. There were some people in Vancouver who built boats for the government, and when the government refused to give any more orders they formed a company and built ships for themselves. Some of these ships cost over a million dollars, and one in particular was sold last fall, I think, for 8250,000, or less than one-quarter what it cost originally. Parliament should understand therefore that the government is not the only one that is faced with this proposition. I cannot see how these boats will ever pay running expenses, and when these ships can-
 .
not take care of themselves and pay the running charges, surely the sooner the government get rid of them the better it will be for the whole country. I do not propose to offer any opposition to this item, but I do think that the minister should give the House some guarantee that he will endeavour to get rid of the boats in whatever way he can before another session of parliament is called. We should not be asked to vote a sum of money year after year to keep up something that is of no benefit to the country. What right has this House to vote the money of the taxpayers each year in the way of a bonus to keep in operation these boats that are competing with ships owned by private companies? I do not think it is fair to the other companies. Those other companies have to pay their crews, and interest on their investment, and, in a great many cases, income tax. Why then should this government vote sums of the taxpayers' money year after year for the purpose of competing with private companies that are doing a legitimate business? I do not think it is right, and I certainly hope that before another session comes around the minister will see his way clear to have some at least of the boats disposed of.	*


William Duff: I rise to apologize to the House for the statement I made last night which the minister referred to a moment ago -that freight was paid to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine boats on coal carried by them from Sydney to Montreal at the rate of 82.80 per ton.


George Perry Graham: It was a member over there who said it.


William Duff: Somebody said it anyway, and I said so, too. The minister points out today that I made a mistake and that the freight rate charged was $1.50 per ton. Well, I have to apologize to the House because I made the rate too low. I do not know where the minister got his information, but if he will turn to the Auditor General's report for 1922 he will find the following at page W-116:
Freight on coal, Canadian Government Merchant Marine: Sydney to Levis, 3,110 tons at $4 per ton-


An hon. MEMBER:: What!


William Duff: Four dollars per ton, when other boats were carrying coal for $1.10 per ton.


George Perry Graham: What year?


William Duff: I am quoting from the Auditor General's report for the year ended March 31, 1922. Continuing my quotation:

Supply-Merchant Marine
Sydney to St. John and Halifax, 19,202 tons at $2.60; Louisburg to St. John and Halifax, 29,337 tons at $2.60.
I am quite sure that other boats would have carried this coal at half the rate to the two latter ports, and at less than half to Levis. And yet the minister says the coal was carried at a rate of $1.50 per ton.


George Perry Graham: We will have that checked up. The item referred to goes further back-


William Duff: This is the last report of the Auditor General.


George Perry Graham: That would be for business done in 1920 I imagine. It goes back further than the business I was referring to, which was done in 1921. I thought that would be far enough back. The manager told me last night that he thought $1.50 was the rate. He telephoned to Montreal this morning and his figure was confirmed. It referred to 1921, a year later. I will have the item looked into; there may be some explanation of the very high rates quoted.


William Duff: I just wanted to show that I
was right in my statement.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend might- be right in that statement, but the other half of the statement, that privately-owned boats were carrying coal for $1.10 per ton, might be wrong. The two years might have got confused.


William Duff: Oh, no, it was the same year.
, Mr. MEIGHEN: Mr. Chairman, of all hon. members here I can make no pretence to any practical knowledge of either shipbuilding or the shipping business, but I think it is due to the House that some short review should be made of the history of the Canadian Government Mercantile Marine, to clear away any misconceptions that might arise from these discussions.
While I do not disagree-as I usually have to, very reluctantly

with everything said by the hon. member for Lunenburg, (Mr. Duff); because a part of his review of the history of the matter is not out of accord with my recollection-I fear the House would get the impression that something approaching insanity, something unaccompanied by the slightest sense of public duty, had animated- the late government in its mercantile marine policy, that in our hurry to get rid of all the funds of the country we had put them into expensive vessels which when built were not fitted to carry passengers, package freight, cattle or coal, indeed, were not much good for anything save as a spectacle of extravagance and waste; and that having committed this folly, we proceeded to add another, to seek to operate these vessels under a board, none of whose members had any financial interest in their operation.
I think hon. members are fairly well acquainted with what has taken place, and in that respect the hon. member for Lunenburg, to do him justice, was not grossly and violently wrong. It was in 1918 that the enterprise of shipbuilding was first launched upon. It was not in 1918 that the first public agitation to that end was commenced. Well I recall in years previous from the benches of the then opposition a determined campaign was opened to compel the government to establish for Canada a mercantile marine. The champion of that agitation he who was most eloquent and most persistent, he who excelled in both those qualities, was the Hon. William Pugsley, now seated in a less contentious post. Previous to that agitation we did not undertake the work. The demands upon the Treasury were very great, the prospect of a large government railway mileage was not immediate, the success of the German submarine campaign was much less a menace than it became later on, and the call for ships the world over was nothing at all in 1916 and 1917 to what it became in 1918.
In 1918, $25,000,000 was appropriated to help meet the situation on the part of Canada. The Prime Minister of the day came to parliament and secured approval of that appropriation, and he set out before the House the entire programme as then contemplated by the administration. Up to this point I do not think the two accounts of what has happened differ.
Previous to the armistice contracts were let for forty-five ships, and these included the smaller ships that are now the subject of so much discussion. These smaller ships at that time could be built quickly, they were needed quickly, they had a very, very pressing service immediately to perform, and therefore they were included in the ships first laid down. The contracts went on. In the spring of 1919, though the armistice had been signed and peace was almost certain to be declared, it became evident not only to this country, but, I think, to every other country that the need for ships was even greater than it had been twelve months before. When I say it became evident, I fortify the phrase by the assertion that every other country answered to the demand at least in equal degree proportionately to what this country did; some countries answered in much greater

Supply-Merchant Marine
proportion. I mention in this regard particularly the United States of America.
Then, in 1919, other circumstances came in sight of very great and immediate consequence relative to the shipbuilding programme. Not only was the world's shipping depleted and the world suffering seriously from such depletion at that time, but Canada, having already acquired at the close of 1917 the Canadian Northern Railway, had in view the acquirement of the Grand Trunk Railway. Indeed', its acquirement seemed to be inevitable by one process or the other. Hence there could be seen in view a tremendous railway system owned and operated by the government in competition with the other great Canadian transportation system, the Canadian Pacific Railway. There were other circumstances as well, the force of which does not now come home to the mind with the same weight and by anything like the same pressure with which it was brought home to the minds of hon. members of this House of all political persuasions in 1919. Those were the days of very rapid demobilization. Our soldiers were coming back by the hundreds of thousands, and the country was utterly unable to absorb with the speed of their return the men who had done service overseas. Unemployment is at all times a very serious subject matter for a government's consideration. But unemployment when suffered by men returning from a terrific conflict differs from other unemployment. The demand then must be met; public opinion will permit nothing but that it be met to the full power of the government. The pressure for these ends I can, of course, very easily recall; I was in the midst of it. I ask hon. gentlemen to keep in mind that pressure of that kind is a just pressure, and, what is more, it is an irresistible pressure. Money spent in providing employment, even if we assume it is spent in the construction of something of no great value, is not wholly money wasted; if we had not provided it in one form or the other we would have paid it out in cash. The situation had to be confronted and surmounted. It was confronted and surmounted, and the construction of more vessels was one of the methods by which this end was attained. Now, I have mentioned three circumstances; all were of consequence. Others I might review, but those three circumstances, I say, were of exceeding consequence indeed. I emphasize again that among the vessels first laid down, contracts for which were signed, executed and in process of completion at the time the armistice v7as signed, the smaller were included; a suffi-f.Mr. Meighen.]
cient number of the larger vessels for other purposes was not included in the first laid down. The government, therefore, in April, 1919, laid1 before parliament proposals for the construction, I think it was, of eighteen more -at all events, of the balance.


William Duff: That is right; eighteen.


Arthur Meighen: I ask hon. members to recall that included in that government were hon. members who now sit opposite; included in that government was the former leader of the Progressive party. All concurred in submitting to parliament proposals for that construction, and I do all of them justice when I say that they were moved to that view by the considerations I have sought now to impress again on the committee. Not only did we ask for the money for the purpose-that is to say, for such amount of it as could reasonably be expended in 1919-20, but we informed parliament of the character of the vessels to be constructed; informed parliament of all the details that parliament has a right in every case to be furnished with before being asked to approve of the proposal made. The approval was given in 1918; the approval was given in 1919, and I doubt if any subject matter' has ever been placed before this House that received in each case so unanimous an approval on the part of parliament as did the subject matter of our mercantile marine construction. In 1918 I can remember no dissentient note whatever. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. 4 p.m. Duff) refers to a doubt expressed by the then member for Red Deer. I do not dispute it. I have not had time to look it up; my recollection was that was in 1919 rather than 1918. However, beyond the doubt expressed by him, which, I think, was based on the view he so consistently held that everything except raising wheat could be done cheaper in England or Scotland than in Canada-outside of that I know of no dissentient or discordant note of any kind from any quarter in the Canadian House in either year. In such form the estimates passed and the contracts were subsequently let for these additional vessels. I ask hon. members to keep in mind this fact: Though the vote was passed the government was not bound to go ahead; the government had the authority of parliament to do so, but had circumstances altered it would have been quite justified in changing its policy and coming to parliament later with an explanation. But the circumstances that obtained in the fall and winter and spring of 1918-19 were just as pressing and just as powerful all through the summer of 1919.


IS, 1923
[Stage Direction]
Royal Assent

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the Honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the House went, up to the Senate,
And having returned,
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bills:
An Act to incorporate La Banque Rurale.
An Act respecting The Dominion Fire Insurance Company.
An Act for the relief of Frederick Wesley Graham.
An Act for the relief of Catharine Gunyo Chatterson Odell.
An Act for the relief of Marietta Isabel Wilson.
An Act for the relief of Marian Eugenie MacCordick.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Frankland.
An Act for the relief of Arnold Carrington Burke.
An Act for the relief of Emily Margery Chrimes.
An Act for the relief of Lyle Johnspn.
An Act for the relief of Annie Belle Wilson.
An Act for the relief of Henry John Burden.
An Act for the relief of Ethel Olmsted.
An Act for the relief of Edward Lewis Britton.
An Act for the relief of Ruby Minnie Stallworthy.
An Act for the relief of Christopher Campkin.
An Act for the relief of Andrew George Suffell.
An Act for the relief of Joseph Ross Wallace.
An Act to make lawful the marriage of a woman to her deceased husband's brother or such brother's son.
An Act respecting a certain patent of Arthur R. Wilfley.
An Act respecting certain patents of Charles A. Chan-mell.
An Act respecting certain patents of Albert Manvers.
An Act respecting a certain patent of Hans M. Olson.
An Act respecting The Nipissing Central Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Quebec Central Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Essex Terminal Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.
An Act to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
An Act to amend The Criminal Code with respect to publication of Evidence in Marriage or Divorce Proceedings.
An Act respecting the Royal Guardians.
An Act to amend the Act Incorporatng La Soci6t6 des Artisans Canadiens Frangais" (English and French versions).
An Act respecting certain patents of Leonard Clayton Ridge.
An Act respecting a certain patent of Henry Matthew Wells and James Edward Southcombe.
An Act respecting certain patents of Clarence P. Lan-dreth.
An Act respecting a certain patent of Robert A. Campbell.
An Act to incorporate The Protestant Federation of Patriotic Women of Canada.
An Act respecting a certain patent of James M. Richardson.
An Act respecting Canadian Press Limited.
An Act for the relief of Violet Gardiner.
An Aot for the relief of Frederick Fong Young.
An Act for the relief of Thomas Percy Eversfield.
An	Act	for the	relief	of	Jean Elizabeth Burgess.An	Act	for the	relief	of	Thomas Wesley Scott.An	Act	for the	relief	of	Fannie Boyle.
An Act for the relief of James Forbes.
An Act for the relief of Julia Tracey Kay.
An Act for the relief of Charles Philip Roy McCabe. An	Act	for the	relief	of	William George Haden.An	Act	for the	relief	of	Gertrude Irene Wood.An	Act	for the	relief	of	James Murray.An	Act	for the	relief	of	Japies McAllister.
An Act ,for the relief of David Albert Clayton.
An Act for the relief of Hugh Russell Fulton.
An Act for the relief of Maybelle Elizabeth French. An Act respecting the Canadian Niagara Bridge Company.
An Act to incorporate Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company.
An Act respecting The Rutland and Noyan Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation.
An Act to change the name of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo Telephone Company to Brazilian Telephone Company.
An Act respecting Montreal, Joliette and Transcontinental Junction Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Community, General Hospital, Alms House and Seminary of Learning of the Sisters of Charity at Ottawa.
An Act to change the name of The Penny Bank of Toronto.
An Act to amend The Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.
An Act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
An Act respecting the Canadian National Railways. An Act for the relief of John Darton.
An Act for the relief of Minnie Eileen Biggs.
An Act for the relief of Thomas Henry Bottomley.
An Act for the relief of William Ritchie Dowd.
An Act for the relief of Eliza Harvey Northgraves.
An Act for the relief of Olivette McMaster.
An Act for the relief of Mahlpn Beach.
An Act for the relief of Alfred William Kelly.
An Act for the relief of Wilmot Austin Picked.
An Act for the relief of Annie May Vogelman.
An Act to amend the Militia Pension Act.
An Act to amend the Irrigation Act.
An Act respecting the Testing, Inspection and Sale of Seeds.
An Act to amend the Radiotelegraph Act.
An Act to extend the period of the Canada Highways Act.
An Act respecting the Canadian National Railways. An Act to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act. An Act for the relief of Mabel Gertrude Johnston.
An Act for the relief of Wilfrid Charles Brown.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Andrews.
An Act for the relief of William Henry Davidson.
An Act for the relief of George Robert Webb.
An Act for the relief of Katharine Bryans.
An Act for the relief of George Austin Trow.
An Act for the relief of Ethel Jeaji Buchan.
An Act for the relief of Louisa Wemp.
An Act for the relief of Edgar Lindsay.
An Act for the relief of Charles Marigoli Hare.
An Act for the relief of Esther Levin.
An Act for the relief of Hilda Marguerite Watt Black. An Act for the relief of Abigal Aileen Beryl McCrea Tull.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Merchant Marine
[Stage Direction]
An Act respecting a certain Trade Convention between His Majesty and the King of Italy.
An Act to incorporate Trans-Continental Assurance Company.
An Act to incorporate National Surety Company of Canada.
An Act to Prohibit the Improper Use of Opium and other Drugs.
An Act to amend The Dominion Lands Act respecting the sale or other disposal of coal lands and coal mining rights.
An Act to amend and consolidate the Acts respecting Live Stock.
An Act to regulate the Sale and Inspection of Fruit and Fruit Containers.
An Act to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to Patents of Invention.
An Act to amend The Copyright Act, 1921.
An Act respecting a certain Convention of Commerce between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic.
An Act to amend The Petition of Right Act.
An Act to amend the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act.
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
An Act for the relief of Christina Julia Hamilton.
An Act for the relief of Smith Kain.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Malcolm Mushett.
An Act for the relief of William Francis Rafferty.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Teague.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth McKinley.
An Act for the relief of Algernon Cecil Aubry Moran. An Act for the relief of Emily Adlene McCausland.
An Act for the relief of Winifred Scatcherd.
An Act for the relief of Grace Lees Smiley.
An Act for the relief of Laura MacBrien.
An Act for the relief of Chester Abbott Redmond.
An Act for the relief of James Dunnett.
An Act to provide for the investigation of Combines, Monopolies, Trusts and Mergers.
An Act respecting The Northern Trusts Company.
An Act respecting The Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters in the Dominion of Canada.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1924.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Arthur Meighen: I have carried the record of the decisions of parliament up to the spring of 1919. In that summer the balance of the contracts were let. In the spring of 1920, the government came to parliament again, not with any new proposals at all, but with an estimate of the amount that would be required to proceed with the work on the proposals that parliament had adopted the year before, the amount that would be required for the then ensuing year, because, of course, ships of the size then being built could not be constructed even in that year. Parliament voted that money. It was merely a vote carrying out the previous programme unanimously adopted, without a dissenting vote in the House of Commons. I think I am safe in saying, although I have not had time to review the debates of 1920 for the

purposes of this discussion, that there was no contention in the House even in 1920 against going on with works that were under way; nor was there reflection passed upon the wisdom of the course that had been adopted finally in the spring of 1919. The facts were that at that time other countries were excelling themselves in the same way; that the demand for space, instead of falling off, was as strong as ever; that though conditions in Canada were improving somewhat, the necessity for keeping employed those still at work on our ships, a large proportion of those men being returned men, was just as great and pressing as before. So the work proceeded, and it was almost completed in 1920, only a relatively very small appropriation, I do not know whether it was $2,000,000 or $3,000,000, being required in 1921. This appropriation was determinedly opposed. By this time changes had taken place in the whole mercantile work. By this time deflation was under way. By this time there was a surplus of ships. There was no demand any longer for more; indeed ships were a glut on the markets of the world. Certain hon. gentlemen then saw their chance, and they who had voted for the entire project and for its continuance, turned around and held parliament up in a determined effort to prevent the vote from going through.


Mr. BLACK (Huron):: What time was that?


Arthur Meighen: That would be in the month of April or May, 1921. The opposition was a little belated, but I am not dwelling on those matters now. I am not criticizing hon. gentlemen opposite for their concurrence in the policy adopted, because I think that policy of ship construction was right from a business standpoint at the time we were carrying it out, because the demand for space in Canada, for the use of our docks and harbours for building ships came from all parts of the world. We had to prohibit the building of ships even for neutral countries all through 1920, and at the time we were refusing to build ships of a certain character wooden ships, we were importuned by private owners, private constructors to be allowed to build the same class of ships in this country.


Mr. MARLER:: The right hon. gentleman said a few moments ago, if I mistake not, that there was great unemployment in 1919.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Herbert Meredith Marler: If there was a demand from other countries to build ships in our docks, what was the necessity of our occupying the docks in 1919?

3S31
Supply-Merchant Marine


Arthur Meighen: I do not say that we could have had them in 1919; but we could have had them in 1920, and I am not sure that we could not have had them in 1919. I will tell my hon. friend why we did not. We felt that it was better at that time, when Britain and her allies were sadly in need of ships to make up what the German submarines had destroyed, to keep the docks for our own purposes. I well recall-and I say this with no idea of making a contentious matter of what the present Speaker said at chat time-the strong approval coming from the then hon. member for Maisonneuve because we did this with a policy of holding cur own ports and harbours for the construction of vessels for ourselves and our allies. Great Britain was building ships in Canada at that time through the agency of the Imperial Munitions Board.
This carries us through the programme of ship construction. Now it is said: "Very well; you were right so far as that goes; you did what the best minds and the best judgments in the world, trained and experienced in the subject, were doing at that time. But after they got through, you should have sold them when the price was high. You should not have started to operate them yourselves. You should not have formed a company to operate them. You should not have sought to operate them as a government enterprise. You should have sold them when the price was good and the selling was good." I admit that the selling was good and the price was high. Doubtless, even though we needed the ships later on, it would have paid to have sold them and later on to have bought others. I wonder if that is not the experience of everybody in this world? Is there in the world to-day a business that would not be far better off now if it had just sold its assets two or two and a half years ago and then bought what it needed later on? When did this demand arise in parliament for the sale of our ships? Did any hon. gentleman hear it in 1919 when some of the ships were on the way to completion, when some of them were completed? Did any hon. gentlemen hear it in 1920 when most of them were completed and when the company was formed, in operation, and showing a profit to this country? Nobody ever heard such a claim. The demand came, as it always comes in private life, after the event. You always know the market after the event. Then the complaint came that we should have known this before and sold when the price was good. But there are other considerations that affect a government than
244i
merely the level of the market. By this time we had acquired the Grand Trunk Railway; by this time we were owners of a system of 23,000 miles of railway, and what is more, we were in competition with the best organized, biggest and, perhaps, best managed single business enterprise in the known world, the Canadian Pacific railway. We were in severe competition with them in every line of activity, and we found our competitor with 440,000 tons of shipping at its command ready to serve its system in this country, ready to drain from all the ports of the world the world's business to the Canadian Pacific in Canada. Was it to be thought that we were to face that competition, and while we were addressing ourselves to facing it, disarm ourselves of what mercantile marine we had? Certainly, if we had known the market and known we could have later on bought more cheaply, that would have been the course. But aside from a prevision of the market, I do not see that any argument could be made that we should have adopted any such policy. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company have to-day in their annual statement a mercantile marine asset of some $59,000,000 at cost of construction. The Canadian Pacific fortunately built their vessels at a much cheaper cost than we did. Why? Because they built them sooner; they built them before the war, in the main, although it is true they have built some since. But their average cost of construction is below ours, their tonnage being above ours. The Canadian Pacific Railway to-day have, proportionately to their mileage, far more mercantile marine tonnage than have the National Railways. I doubt not they have double the amount: I think they have double, proportionately to their mileage, the tonnage tlat the National Railways have.
Some complaint, however, is made. It is said: "You did not build cheaply enough; you should have built by tender, and you could have justified your vessels at the time you built them because it was a war necessity. When the whole enterprise was entered upon you could have got them built more cheaply." Well, I venture to say this, and I am glad of the chance to say it in justice to an hon. gentleman who is no longer a member of this House: No enterprise of the Canadian people was ever better managed from a business point of view than was the construction of the Canadian Mercantile Marine, and I invite hon. gentlemen opposite, if they have any question as to that, to be good enough to follow their policy of commission-making just a little further and appoint one, two, or
Supply-Merchant Marine

three experienced shipbuilding men-and they can appoint a judge of their own choosing at the head-to investigate the whole subject of the Canadian Mercantile Marine I would welcome, and every hon. member on this side of the House would welcome, such an investigation; and certainly no one in this Dominion would welcome it with more avidity than the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Our Mercantile Marine was not built by tender for the simple reason that it could not be done. You cannot let by tender for the building of ships when you have fourteen docks in Canada, all of which must be engaged; nor can you build at the same price in one as you can in another. What country in the world does build its ships by tender? I do not know of any. I know that when we were building our 65 vessels, the United States were building 1,553, and they did not do the work by tender. Great Britain was building too at a very rapid rate, but she was not building by tender. We asked for the construction of a vessel of a certain type; we asked for quotations on that type of vessel to be built at a certain place; and we did not accept the lowest quotation. In every case, I think, the lowest we considered too high, and after the lowest was in a price was fixed and the builders were told that if they could not accept that price they could not get the work. The result was that we built our marine at an average cost of $191 per ton at the same time that the United States were building ships of poorer quality as the event shows, at $50 to $100 per ton more. At the same time, too, Great Britian was huilding at a cost equal to our own.


Mr. JACOBS:: I understood that we were
building in order to provide work for the unemployed.


Arthur Meighen: Yes in part, but that did not mean that we would pay more for the ships than they were worth. The provision of work for the unemployed was one of the reasons for the building of the ships, but I did not say it was the only one. I stated three main considerations, one of which was work for the unemployed, and I venture to say that had the unemployed factor been the only consideration, and we had not yielded to it, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and the exceedingly alert-minded member for Montreal (Mr. Rinfret), would have been at the head of a delegation to press upon us the need of the unemployed of their eity.


Herbert Meredith Marler: What other hon. member for Montreal did the leader of the Opposition refer to?


Arthur Meighen: I referred to the hon.
gentleman who first interrupted me, the member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), but I have equal confidence that the tender heart of the member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Marler) would also have been moved. I have not a doubt of it.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I suggest that they
did not require my services inasmuch as Mr. Ballantyne was looking after Vickers and other large concerns.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, Mr. Ballantyne was looking after the workingmen, and the services of the hon. member were not required. But I say that if Mr. Ballantyne had failed in his duty the hon. member's services would have been enlisted and most willingly given-


Samuel William Jacobs: As an opposition member-


Arthur Meighen: -to get the ships built.
Mr. JACOBS; -I should have had a fine chance.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member did
not show any opposition in 1919. The time he began to oppose the thing was after the whole programme was under way and nearly completed and when there was no danger on earth of anyone being thrown out of work by this opposition.


Samuel William Jacobs: I was merely an observer
at that time.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I know that, and the hon. gentleman came into opposition at a time when there wa8 no danger that his opposition could possibly cause anyone in his county to lose work. Nobody was going to leave a ship three-quarters built, and when the hon. gentleman began his opposition he was perfectly aware that it could endanger no one in his constituency. What was the reason of the laughter of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret)?
Mr. RINFRET; I always enjoy my hon. friend's speeches whether they convince me or not.


Arthur Meighen: I admire the ingenuousness of the reply. Now what about the quality of the ships at the prices paid for them? I have read a speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), who has become an expert on the subject of shipbuilding and the use of ships. I had lots of time and I read the speech; and one would gather from it that these were ships of a very poor quality. There was nothing that the hon. gentleman knew of which they could carry at all; at least I did not come across, anywhere

Sujrply-Merchant Marine
in his speech, anything to indicate that he thought they were fit for any purpose whatever. And I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) this afternoon. Does anyone imagine that the government of this country put $70,000,000 into ships without getting at least the best opinion at its command as to the nature of the ships required? Does anyone suppose that the government did all this without having availed itself of the best inspectors to supervise the execution of the work and to pass upon the soundness of the design? If hon. members have any doubt and believe that there was carelessness in that regard, again I invite them to institute an inquiry, and I venture to say that they will find that no better ships were built by any country or any individual firm than the ships that were built by us, nor were there any ships more suited to the needs of the time.


Samuel William Jacobs: What are they suited for?


Arthur Meighen: They are suited for anything. What are they not suited for? We are told that they cannot carry package freight. Well, twenty of them were specially built to carry package freight. Of these, 18 have 'tween decks for the purpose, and 2 of them have three decks. They were built for package freight, and built by the best designers whom we knew anything about.


Samuel William Jacobs: Can they carry cattle?


Arthur Meighen: They were not fitted to carry cattle and they were not carrying cattle because there were no cattle to carry. But all they need is stanchions for the purpose, and they will carry cattle the same as any other ships. The hon. member, with his astute mind, must have noticed that in the quotations from the letters read by the Minister of Agriculture, that hon. gentleman always took great pains not to read the whole of any letter. He read little quotations to show that the ships were not fit to carry cattle, but on examination of the quotations it will be found that the letters referred to the smaller ships and the smaller ships only. There is nothing whatsoever in the quotations to indicate that the larger ships were being referred to. The smaller vessels are intended for the Newfoundland, the West Indian and the lake trade. They are fitted for that trade and have operated successfully. They are well fitted for coal and ordinary freight. But more; there has never been any evidence yet of any defect in the construction of a single one of the 65 ships.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Some hon. member smites. Will he tell me what the evidence is? There is not a tittle.


Mr. FORRESTER:: One is at the bottom of the ocean.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and the insurance is collected. But that did not show any defect in this ship. The Titanie is at the bottom too, and the insurance is not collected. No, I say again, there has not been a tittle of evidence, nor a suggestion of any defect in construction of a single vessel. They are well constructed of the best material. I have heard men say, who ought to know, that there are no other vessels so well built as these. I go so far only as to say that there are no better vessels in the mercantile marine of any land. And again I invite that the statements I make be tested. I do not know any other way of convincing hon. gentlemen.


Samuel William Jacobs: How many of these vessels have been wrecked?


Arthur Meighen: One has sunk, one at the time of the last report I read had been rammed. I am not certain that because a vessel is rammed by another it is an evidence of faulty construction. Beyond that I do not know of any of these vessels having been wrecked. But the best ships on earth may be so lost. Ships do not control the weather, nor the rocks, nor the meanderings of other vessels.


Mr. RINFRET:: Neither do governments.


Arthur Meighen: Nor do private companies. So that seems to be the close of that incident.


Mr. FORKE:: I should like to make a suggestion, if I may interrupt the right hon. gentleman. I know that the members in this quarter of the House are very, very anxious to get the fullest information about these ships. When I was in Montreal last summer there were no ships idle in the harbour but three or four of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. What is the reason for their idleness? I hope the right hon. leader of the Opposition will understand that I am not finding fault, I am not blaming anyone in this connection. Indeed, I do not think there is really any severe criticism of our Government Merchant Marine. What we really want is information, because it does seem lamentable that we should own millions of dollars worth of ships that we cannot do anything with. I mention this so the right hon. gentleman may know the feeling in this part of the House in regard to this subject.
Supply-Merchant Marine


Arthur Meighen: I find that the hardest question to answer. I was in Montreal, too, a little while ago and saw three or four of our government ships idle, while ships of the same kind, as I was told by men who know, were busily engaged. I am afraid I must express the fear that there is lack of sympathy in the management of these ships, lack of a desire to make them a success. It may be a fact-and I do not feel in a position to argue to the contrary at the present time-[DOT] that the purpose for which these ships were built immediately having been served, it might be the part of wisdom to dispose of some of them. That would apply, I fancy, if it applies at all-I do not admit that it does apply at all-to the smaller vessels and it would be no reflection on the wisdom of the original policy. In my judgment it could not apply in any way whatever to the larger vessels. It is true that these vessels could be bought to-day for a much smaller sum, but $191 a ton was low relative to the cost of construction of other ships at the time these were built. The Americans built wooden ships at a cost of $200 a ton at the same time as compared with our cost of $191 a ton for steel ships. We were importuned to build wooden ships too. Many were the errors that were avoided, and that was one.


William Duff: If my right hon. friend will allow me-the government did build, or start, four wooden ships.


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Duff: Oh, yes.


Arthur Meighen: No. A loan was made to a private company, and this was solely for unemployment purposes at Victoria. But those were not government ships.


William Duff: The government lost money by them.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I think we did. In fact all money that went toward unemployment was lost money. I do not know any other way of attending to the unemployed except by losing money. Of course, there is a way of avoiding this loss, by throwing the unemployed overboard, leaving them to their own resources. But it was a question of helping the unemployed, and we thought that was an avenue through which some help could be given. The United States government built 226 vessels, and not one of those ever got to sea.


George Perry Graham: Those were wooden.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. But the hon.
minister should remember that his next door neighbour to the present Minister of Finance urged the government at that time to build wooden ships, but we resisted his importunity. And his was not the only importunity; from every end of this country we were pressed to build wooden ships, and the main credit goes to the business judgment of the then Minister of Marine that we did not build any such ships. He was the piece de resistance against that policy.


Samuel William Jacobs: Would they not have cost
less?


Arthur Meighen: They cost the American
government more. I think they would have cost this government less, but in the light of subsequent circumstances they would have been worthless. Ships that the American government built of wood and concrete never got to sea either. The American government spent $700,000 per ship on these 226 wooden ships, that is, $160,000,000. They were junk when they were built. In a word, the American government spent more on those wooden ships twice over than the whole cost of tne Canadian Government Merchant Marine. I am not sure th it I can tell from memory just how many wooden and concrete ships they built, but a considerable number, and I know that those, too, were junk when built. The American government is to-day operating about two and a quarter million tonnage-a small part only of what they built. They built eleven million tonnage at a time when we were building three hundred thousand tonnage. My figures may be wrong.


William Duff: Three hundred and fifty thousand.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. That eleven million tonnage cost the American government $3500,000,000, and on the portion they got rid of they lost colossal sums, and they are not over the liability yet, because they had to make contracts with the shipbuilding companies, and these will have to be arranged. On the small portion they operate of two and a quarter million tonnage their loss, irrespective of interest on cost and of depreciation, is $50,000,000 per annum. The total loss to the American government now on the ships they built amounts to $20,000,000. per month, or $240,000,000 per year.


Samuel William Jacobs: Harm they not advertised
them for sale?


Arthur Meighen: I think they have sold
the wooden ships for junk. But the American government have not the same reason

Supply-Merchant Marine
for a mercantile marine that we have. They have no national system of railways to operate in competition with a big privately owned system; they are in a wholly different position. They did not manage the construction of their mercantile marine as well as did the Canadian government, the scale of operations was far greater than ours and far more faulty, and, further, the use to which the ships were afterwards put could never at all be compared with the sound judgment of the course pursued in this country.
I was about to dwell for just a moment upon the effect which the possession of our National Railways should have on any argument on this question. Hon. gentlemen say : Get rid of the ships. Well, confidentially- if I may use the term in parliament-I am not very much afraid of the government selling the ships, I am not very much afraid of their selling the National Railways.


Samuel William Jacobs: Who will take them?


Arthur Meighen: I know there are men
to-day who would take the National Railways infinitely more quickly than anyone would have been ready to take them when we were rescuing their component parts from bankruptcy in private hands. They have a system to-day that would attract capital from anywhere, and they know it. Hon. gentlemen smile. I know something about this subject. I had invitations even at the time we took these railways over, but I am not afraid of the government selling the system. There are hon. gentlemen in the government who can sense public opinion a little more accurately than that. The anti-government ownership campaign was made for campaign purposes, it was not made for practical business results when they were in power. And the same is true in large degree of the mercantile marine. They may sell some of the ships. While I do not feel disposed to say- because I do not pretend to be an expert on the quality and purpose of ships-that no sale would be justified, I say determinedly that anything like a wholesale disposal of our mercantile marine would be folly in the light, of the position of this country to-day. I do not feel any fear that the government will commit this folly, notwithstanding all the importunities of perhaps some of their supporters and doubtless of other interested persons throughout this country.
How are we going to compete with the Canadian Pacific without a ship at all, when they are carrying trade to their system from every quarter of the world? Besides, we could not to-day have our trade treaty with the West Indies, which trade treaty is worth
something, which trade treaty is not a detriment like some trade treaties which have been since. We have a preference to-day, not only better than we had before, but better than other countries have, with Jamaica, for example,-with whom we do considerable business-of 25 per cent. We could not continue that; we could not have had it-


Samuel William Jacobs: Are we not subsidizing vessels to other parts of the world?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, we are subsidizing
the Royal Mail Steam Packet vessels at $400,000 a year, and if we get rid of our Canadian Forester and Canadian Fisher, which run down to the West Indies, we will subsidize a lot more. It simply means an extension of the subsidy policy. Why, all over the world to-day we have to subsidize. And still we are thinking of disposing of the ships we have-at least, we are talking about it; we are not thinking very seriously. Yes; we could not have had our trade treaty with the West Indies if we had not had these two freight vessels of, I think, 10,500 tons each, and with a capacity for 30 passengers on each, running down to these islands. One benefit we get from the vessels is the trade that results therefrom-we have had a lot more, and hoi gentlemen know it-is this: We succeed in capturing a considerable share of the American lumber trade on the Pacific. Our vessels running from the Pacific coast to New Zealand and Australia have been a paying enterprise, and what is more, our others are not losing at the figure hon. gentlemen would like us to believe. There is a 4 per cent charge for depreciation here. I am assuming in what I say that the very best management is taking place, although I must admit there are consequences that I cannot harmonize with that assumption. We have a charge for depreciation of 4 per cent. Well, at 24 per cent, out at interest-the same interest as that on which the computation is made in the statement-the whole capital cost would be disposed of in twenty-five years. That is an actuarial computation.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The boats would not last that long.


Arthur Meighen: They would not? Hon.
members opposite are just through voting $400,000 to the Royal Mail Packet steamers that are from thirty to forty years old-an old type of vessels, nothing like the type of the ones we are discussing. And the hon. member says ours would not last 25 years. Why not?
Supply-Merchant Marine

Mi?. MARLER: I gay that a vessel twenty-five years old of this character is absolutely antiquated.


Arthur Meighen: 
Herbert Meredith Marler: Because vessels thirty-nine years old were purchased or built at a very much lower figure than these vessels.


Mr.   MHIGHKX@: 
Mr.   MARKER@: 
Arthur Meighen: Certainly, but there is 4 per cent here on the total cost. The cost does not figure in the question when the 2i per cent will run out.


Herbert Meredith Marler: They are not earning
4 per cent.


Arthur Meighen: I am not talking about earnings; I am talking about What sura in depreciation will take cate of the whole capital cost.


Herbert Meredith Marler: How are you going to
write it off if you do hot earh it?


Arthur Meighen: i am not talking about writing it Off. The hOn. gentleman has missed the point altogether,


Herbert Meredith Marler: I do not think so.


Arthur Meighen: If per cent of the
capital cost will take care Of the whole capital cost in twenty-five years, then I say 2i per cent is sufficient. The hon. member said they would not last twenty-five years, and he gave as a reason that they had cost so much.


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, I did not give that as a reason.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that is the reason
he gave me.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I said nothing of the
kind. The question Of their costing so much does not make them last a longer or a shorter time. What I said was this: The boats are not earning sufficient to write off what my right hon. friend says is sufficient for depreciation, 2| per cent.


Arthur Meighen: I did not claim they
Were.


Herbert Meredith Marler: How does the right hon.
gentleman expect to write it off if the boats are not earning it?


Arthur Meighen: Well, there is 4 per cent written off now.


Herbert Meredith Marler: That 4 per cent is a
book-keeping entry, it is true.


Arthur Meighen: 
Herbert Meredith Marler: So- you would reduce simply the book-keeping entry?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, in order that We may know what the loss is.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I think the hOn. gentleman is speaking very theoretically.
Mr. MEfGHEN: Well, the book-keeping entry is theoretical if what I am saying is theoretical. What I am saying is that the loss shown is greater than the actual loss, for the reason that the 21- per cent, instead of from 4 to S'-I think it is between 4 and 5 -is a sufficient depreciation to take care of the whole capital cost in 25 years, and the vessels should last very much longer than that and still be of use.


William Duff: Will the right hon. gentleman allow a little explanation? He is
5 p.m. quite right in saying that 2J per cent will take care of the first capital cost in thirty years.


Arthur Meighen: Twenty-five.


William Duff: But there are other reasons why depreciation must be set to rest. One reason is that ships ean hardly ever be insured at their full value, and in ease the company should lose some of them during the thirty years it is neeesSary to put a certain amount of money for depreciation to rest to take care of the difference between what the vessels are insured for and what they cost. That is one reason why it is neeessafy to put to rest for depreciation a larger amount than 2i per cent or even 4 per cent. Then, there is another reason: It may be found necessary during the twenty-five years to spend a large amount of money for the repairing of boilers and engines or to make other extraordinary expenditures in connection with the ships.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I can see some force in the first; at least, I can not say that it is valueless as an argument. But in the second I Cannot, because any cost of that kind is included in the annual charges.
Mr, DUFF: Not extraordinary expenditures.

Supply-Merchant Marine


Arthur Meighen: I do- not see why they would not. However, what I set out to show was that the figures are at least a very ample presentation of the present loss. And how absurd after all it is to be charging 5i per cent interest against the war cost, especially of 45 ships that had to be built for the purposes of war. That is a charge against the war; that cannot be computed in the decision as to what our loss is and in giving us some idea whether or not we should proceed.
Then, I have another eomplaint to make:
I do not believe we are getting the benefit of these ships that we ought to get. I never have very much faith in an enterprise that is being managed by those unsympathetic to it. Up to the time we got the Grand Trunk into the system there was some excuse for the Grand Trunk business going to an American line-the White Star line, but since then I do not know of any excuse; I would like to hear of one if there is any. We ought to be getting the business that is going to the White Star line for the Canadian Mercantile Marine, thereby adding not only' to the returns of the mercantile marine but to the returns also of Canadian railways. Why should our business be going there? My information is

I hoprTmay be wrong; I hope a change has been made-that that business is not coming to us yet. If we had the business the White Star line had for the Grand Trunk and which we now ought to have for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, then there would be a very considerably improved showing, if not, indeed, a favourable showing in the total. I know of no reason why those who can manage a railway cannot manage a mercantile marine. I think the results of the last three years show that a railway can be managed by a business directorate even though it is owned by a country. What insuperable obstacle is there to prevent the managing of a mercantile marine when its management is necessarily associated with a railway?
Now, what I have said I have stated with a view to placing fairly before the committee the reasons that actuated the late government in the course it took, and in order that hon. members may have some idea of what we really have, instead of the idea they too easily get from- some of the speeches made in this House, namely, that we really have nothing of value. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), said "Oh, they are too slow; they do not go fast enough." Well, the speed of these vessels varies from 11| to 13, or at the lowest, li. What I am saying is not something which I give merely on my own
authority; the speed of every vessel was tested before we took it over. I do1 not know whether Or not any of those assisting the minister at this hour can give the official records, but I know the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries can do it, because he has the records. The records run, for all the vessels except the two largest, the Forester and the Fisher, lli to 12; the Forester and the Fisher are 13. Now, what I say is this: If there is any just i riticism it is that they are fast. Freight-owners do not want fast freight vessels because it takes too much in coal to operate them. Eight and a half and nine knots an hour is about what they want, and as a matter of fact though the vessels owned by the Canadian Mercantile Marine can run at eleven and a half to twelve knots and two of them at thirteen knots they do not actually do it for the reason that it is a more expensive operation; but the Capacity of the vessel is there and it is utterly absurd, indeed, it is an injustice to this House, for the Minister of Agriculture to tell us that the vessels are of slow construction. They are fitted for all the purposes for which good vessels are fitted, and they are designed by the best designers that could be found. They are of British design and they are of a design, let me inform my hon. friend the member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride), that the British are now using in the construction of their vessels. Thirteen of them have cold storage facilities, and all of them are equipped with the telemotor for steering. A great many of them I think, or nearly all of the larger vessels, are oil burners and some combine oil and steam. They are modern in every particular in respeet to construction, and they are of the design that is being used at this time. Of course if we could have foretold conditions, had we had some superior wisdom that nobody in the world has had, we might have made money by a sale which, however, I think would have necessitated new purchases later though at a smaller sum. Outside of that the Course pursued has been wise having regard to all the circumstances of the period,


William Duff: Is it not a fact that the old directorate of Which Mr. Hanna was the president decided to sell twenty-seven of these ships more than a year ago?


Arthur Meighen: It is a fact that the old directorate recommended a sale of the smaller vessels, and they may have been right in So doing.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I compliment the right hon. the leader of the
3S38

Supply-Merchant Marine
Opposition on at last offering to the House some reasonable praise of these ships, and the policy of the government that built them. I am not going to commend that policy or defend it. I thought at the time that it was a foolish if not a wasteful one. Experience has shown that the policy was wasteful but has not yet definitely proved that it was foolish. It may be interesting to those of us who are looking on with the attitude of laymen rather than expert seamen to notice that most of the attacks on this policy come from hon. gentlemen on the side of the House that is not at all sympathetic towards public ownership. That is, perhaps, one of the most significant features of this debate I would submit to the committee that if they look at the history and situation of the Canadian Pacific Railway there is hardly a gentleman who will contend that the great position it has reached in the world to-day could have been attained had it not ex-nanded steadily in the direction of sea control. It is with great pride as Canadians that we look on the extraordinary expansion of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's business in the Orient, on the Pacific, in the South Seas, on the Atlantic, in fact everywhere ships go. I cherish the ambition that our own system will experience a similar expansion. I would like to see our business expand in corresponding degree with that of the Canadian Pacific, and I hope that in time it will even excel it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has my hon. friend from Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), who expresses a certain amount of derision at that observation not got a similar ambition' I hope he has. The time may come, I hope it will, when the Canadian National lines will be in the ocean business an equal with the Canadian Pacific.


Samuel William Jacobs: As a publicly-owned concern?


Edward Joseph Garland: As a
publicly-owned concern.


Samuel William Jacobs: My hon. friend is an
optimist.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have faith in the people which perhaps my hon. friend has not. May I suggest also that there is rather an inconsistency between the attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite in defending a vote of $2,000,000 for the purchase of a hotel in Paris with a view to expanding the business of the Canadian National P^'ways in Europe

and their present attitude in regard to the Canadian Mercantile Marine. They argued in favour of development of business in Europe with a view to its transfer to the Canadian National lines. That, perhaps, is not an immediate possibility but we hope it will be realized in the future and we expect that the Canadian National lines will expand with the development of that European trade.
The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) yesterday delivered a speech which, to me at any rate, displayed moderation and a knowledge of the subject that was encouraging. I wish to congratulate the hon. member on his speech which is one of the best he has made in this House. But during his remarks he quoted from the Ottawa Journal, the Montreal Gazette, and another paper. The only remark I have to make with respect to these quotations is that they were all from papers that are violently opposed to national ownership. That also is significant.


William Duff: That is something in their
favour.


Edward Joseph Garland: That depends on the point of view. As for the quality of the ships themselves the leader of the Opposition has dealt very fully with that phase of the subject. But there is one little item in the press, that may be of interest to the members of this committee. It deals with the seaworthiness of one of our ships, the Canadian Fisher. It is very rarely that a vessel has to endure the buffeting of a gale of a type such as the Canadian Fisher had to endure and comes through safely. I think the hon. member for Lunenburg will agree with me that the vessels which come safely through that kind of experience are wooden sailing ships, and others of buoyant character. Now, the article I wish to quote appeared in the Montreal Gazette of October 3rd, 1922, and it is headed:
Government ship in cyclonic gale.
Canadian Fisher successfully weathered violent hurricane near Bermuda.
I simply wish to place this article on Hansard in order to indicate to those who have spoken so freely in condemnation of the utter uselessness of the ships of the Canadian Mercantile Marine that in reality they are very seaworthy. Now this is what the article says:
Passengers who arrived in port on the Canadian Forester, of the -Canadian Government Merchant Marine, had exciting tales to tell of the cyclonic gale which swept over the Atlantic on Thursday, September 21, causing considerable damage in Bermuda. These passengers were on the Canadian Fisher, also of the C.G.M.M., which w'as caught at the edge of the vortex and was buffeted for eight hours in a

Supply-Merchant Marine
*wind which records taken on board the Motive, the survey ship, indicated a maximum velocity of 103 miles an hour, with an average velocity of 98 miles an hour.


William Duff: On the edge of the cyclone?


Edward Joseph Garland: On the edge of the vortex of a cyclone.


William Duff: Travelling at a velocity of 103
miles?


Edward Joseph Garland: So the
article reads. It says that the average velocity of the wind was 98 miles an hour. Does the hon. member question the statement?


William Duff: I do certainly.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the hon. member question the statement that a cyclone can have a velocity of 98 miles an hour?


William Duff: The centre of a cyclone will have that velocity but not the edge.


Edward Joseph Garland: To resume the quotation:
The Canadian Fisher, Captain Fergus Ferguson, proved to be a stout ship and weathered the gale [DOT]wonderfully well. All the boat covers were ripped free, while the canvas dodgers on the bridge were torn to pieces. One piece held on to a stanchion on Monkey Island and the force of the blow bent the upright. The heavy plate glass windows on the wings of the bridge were shattered into little pieces. Some damage was done to the Marconi house and the eng.ne room telegraph on the poop deck was wrecked.
There were only two casualties, a fireman receiving a scalp wound after having been pitched against some fittings, while Mr. Stoddard, the second officer, was struck by the end of a broken signal halliard, which whipped across his face and left him a cut and a black eye.
The Fisher was near Bermuda when the cyclonic gale broke and Captain Ferguson swung around so as to give the ship plenty of sea room. The wind started out of the northeast and swung around the compass, the Fisher shouldering her way around with the wind. She was driven at full speed and made about a knot an hour, meanwhile being driven thirty miles sideways.
Calm Night Followed
The wind blew with indescribable fury, whipping heavy rain across the mountainous seas. It was an amazing revelation of the power of an angry sea. After the gale had blown over and while the sea was yet running high, the sun came out in the afternoon and was followed by a glorious starlit night.
The Fisher had been warned of the approach of the cyclonic gale by heavy seas and also by wireless. The barometer dropped very rapidly, falling to 28.10, which is a very low mark. The barometer rose as rapidly as it fell.
On arrival at Hamilton the passengers subscribed to a memorial to Captain Ferguson expressing appreciation of his seamanship, courage and resourcefulness, and also praising the actions of the other officers, the crew and more particularly the engine room staff.
And the crew, and more particularly the engine room-


William Duff: It does not say she used oil.


Edward Joseph Garland: Regardless of what she used the feat performed by a steel bu'lt freight ship going through a cyclone of that character, close to land, with little or no sea room, having to drive seawards, and only able to make a knot an hour, while the force of the gale drove her thirty miles sideways, is a tribute to the seaworthiness of the vessel.


William Duff: These thirty-year-old ships of (he Royal Mail Packet Company and ships of other lines have to contend with these hurricanes every trip they make.


Edward Joseph Garland: That may be true, but it does not take away from the merit of this particular feat.


William Duff: Not at all.


Edward Joseph Garland: On a previous occasion I cited the case of one of the Government Merchant Marine ships which on her maiden voyage made 13,000 miles with untried engines without a single breakdown. These are instances that have come to my attention that prove much that the right hon. leader of the Opposition has said on behalf of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. It was very encouraging to one who has hopes for the development of national ownership in this country that he should have so wholeheartedly expressed the opinion that these boats could carry anything, and after listening to the speeches of the right hon. member, I must say that my opinion coincides with his.
There has been considerable criticism of the size of the ships and the necessity of getting rid of the small boats, because they cannot make money. As a layman, it is very-puzzling to find such conflicting evidence given, not only from all corners of the House, but from the press itself. I picked up a copy of the Boston News Bureau, a daily-financial paper, of Monday, March 19, 1923. where, in an article headed "British Shipping Languishes" I find the following:
In some trades ships of about 9,000 tons are proving too big for the cargoes offering with boats of about hailf this size of more manageable proportions. Owners who recently have added larger sized ships to their fleets are in many oases regretting it.
Much that has been said by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) with regard to the expense of building these ships, the vast amount of money the taxpayers have had to pay and may have to pay in the future has truth, but the amount of this vote is unquestionably warranted. After all, can we
Supply~-Merehant Marine

rot look at this question in the spirit, at any rate, of recognizing the disabilities that exist, accept the Merchant Marine as a war legacy, and then set to work to endeavour with sympathetic minds, with the best interests of the Canadian National at heart, to do what we can to improve the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and make it a paying part of our system? After all, we can hardly expect that line to pay on tin original capital cost, but that is what some hon. members opposite appear to expect to-day.
Mr. DUFF; Is it not a fact that the statements for the last two years show conclusively that whether the ships cost 8200 a ton or 8100 a ton, they could not declare a dividend on their cost?


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. gentleman tell Us what line makes money now?


Edward Joseph Garland: That is exactly the question I had in mind. I am much obliged to the right hon. leader of the Opposition because the same thought was in my mind-what shipping line has made money in the last two years?


William Duff: Quite a few.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would like the names of the lines similar in traffic and tonnage to this line which have made money. I doubt if the hon. member can cite a single instance. This, at any rate, is one point worth considering-how can we expect these lines to pay on the original capital cost? It is utterly out of the question, and cannot be done, considering the present conditions. May I say further that that point might be emphasized by adding that one cannot expect the Canadian Government Merchant Marine to pay as long as the vessels are being used simply as supplement-aries to other lines, or other steamship services now in existence. The other day I read a despatch, I think it Was front London, England, in which comment Was made regarding the establishment of a new passenger service from Canada to the West Indies by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. The article winds up by saying:
It is to be hoped that the passenger line between Canada and the West Indies will be as great a etic-cess as the freight service they have established between the two countries ift the past 18 months.
Another despatch from London, England, dealing with the fact that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine are entering on west coast business, says:

The policy of Canadian Government Merchant Marine throughout has been, to supplement rather than to compete with existing service.
I would respectfully suggest to the committee and to the hon. member for Lunenburg that if we would transfer to the Merchant Marine the subsidies we are paying to the Royal Mail Packet Company in connection with the West India service, the Australian service and other service, the outlook for our marine would be much improved.


George Perry Graham: When the Merchant
Marine inaugurated the Australian services the subsidy lapsed, I think itr 1921. It was $140,000.
Mr, GARLAND (Bow River): I sincerely trust there will be no attempt made to renew the subsidy, and I am confident that may be one of the reasons why the Pacific service is showing a reasonable profit. One point that might be of interest to hon. members in this part of the House will be found in a despatch from Toronto on October 2, last, which reads:
Six Canadian Government Merchant Marine vessels which have been lying idle all summer in Goderich and Midland have now been ordered into commission by October 10, to handle grain from Fort William to Georgian Bay ports. Each vessel has a capacity of 100,000 bushels of grain. The crerw for each boat will number twenty.
And so on. It is an interesting thing to us and has puzzled many members from the West why the Merchant Marine was not used in connection with the lake service. Everyone knows how the combines on the lakes raised1 the price for handling grain to a point that was out of all reason. Great use in my opinion could be made of our Canadian Government Merchant Marine to break the combine on the lakes, and if the government intends to bring in legislation in this regard I would suggest that at any rate it take its marine out of all combines, keep it out of rate combines and use it in order to break them.
It may be quite true there are several of these small boats that will not pay. If that be the case, if an investigation by the minister indicates they will not pay, by all means let us tie them up till we can sell them, but let us keep the boats as to which there is a reasonable hope that they will pay, and make use of them to the best advantage, and around these, as a nucleus, let us develop our great Canadian national fleet of the future. I think there is great hope in this service. I would not like to see it done away with, or sold or given away. There is too great, an agitation at the present time for

Supply-Merchant Marine
it, and as far as I am concerned I think we can support this vote.


George Perry Graham: The question of public ownership of the Merchant Marine has come to us as the result of the war. I will not discuss how or why it came, but it is here. What are we going to do with it? I know some of my friends believe that we should dispose of the Merchant Marine to the highest bidder.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member means the lowest bidder.


George Perry Graham: I would not think that.
It is easier to say these things on the outside looking in than it is to do them on the inside looking out. First as to the stability of the ship, I have never heard any person question the stability of these ships that form the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. Whether it was wise to build them or not, so far as I have been able to find out, they were built well. The United States constructed a large number of ships. I had the honour of being at the launching of some of them that never got any further than the bay in which they were launched. I refer to the wooden ships. The United States are in a great dilemma now with a large number of ships on their hands, with overhead charges piling up, with interest accumulating and no business for many of them. The head of the Shipping board, Albert D. Lasker, has made a report to the President that might be of interest. I will not read it, but I will give just a short synopsis of it. He recommends the formation, for the operation of 450 ships, of eighteen subsidiary companies with a central company to which these eighteen subsidiary companies will be responsible. That w'ould, I think, be 25 ships to a company, if each company had the same number of ships. But the division is not made in that way, as I understand the matter; but rather the ships on each route will be managed by a company, and the 450 ships are thus divided. It is interesting to know that Mr. Lasker, at the conclusion of his report, advised the government of the United States that they should continue to keep in mind the ultimate destiny of the ships, and that was the return of them to private ownership. That may take many years, and the life of the ships may be pretty well exhausted before that time arrives. In the meantime, the United States is endeavouring to make these ships useful and self-sustaining so far as possible. This much must be remembered: Supposing we sold all the ships-and I am in favour of
selling some of the smaller ones-that would reduce our annual interest charge, but it would not wipe it out; we would have an annual interest charge to all eternity on the amount of our loss. So, as regards that, selling these ships would not rid us of that annual expenditure.
A question was raised by my hon. friend as to the speed of the larger ships. It is true that in tests they did run up to 13^ knots an hour, but no ship can well be run in fair weather and bad weather up to its full test, because that would be very expensive. For instance, as regards a locomotive on one of our express or freight trains, sometimes a difference of ten miles an hour in speed will nearly double the consumption of coal. There is a limit to which a locomotive or a boiler can be driven; if you go beyond that limit, you increase the cost very much more materially than by pushing it up to a certain point. But the average rate of the vessels in fair weather and bad weather is from 10 to 11^ knots an hour. Hi knots, I think, being the speed of the two larger vessels. Freight shippers contend that for perishable goods that speed is not sufficient, but that the ships should have a speed of several knots an hour more than that in order to carry perishable goods across the ocean. Whether that be true or not, I am not an expert and I cannot say.


Arthur Meighen: That would depend on whether they have cold storage or not. Twenty of ours have cold storage.


William Duff: Every man wants to get his goods to the market as soon as possible.


George Perry Graham: That is one of the questions raised. As to the arrangement with the White Star and the Cunard lines, I must say in reply to the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) that I did not find anything but sympathetic feeling towards the Merchant Marine except for the smaller boats. In fact, Sir Henry Thornton and every one of the directors with whom I have conversed are strongly of opinion that we ought to keep the larger boats and sell the smaller ones, and they are very sympathetic in the belief that the larger boats are very useful. I think, before the Grand Trunk came into the organization, the Canadian Northern had a working arrangement with the Cunard line. Now they have the Cunard and the White Star. The committee can readily understand that the Canadian National is endeavouring to get its share of immigration, that is, passenger business. Our ships up to date are not prepared to carry passengers to any great extent, and

Supply-Merchant Marine
in order to get a share of our immigration traffic, arrangements must be made with some lines of steamships that are capable of carrying that immigration and that carry both freight and passengers. I am strongly of the view that if the Merchant Marine is to be useful, its greatest use, perhaps, will eventually be in connection with the Canadian National line. I do not want to tell tales out of school, but I might intimate to the members of the committee that the returns from some of the routes are looking much better this year up to date than last year. It is true that last year was a fairly disastrous year for shipping, and many of the larger companies lost money. I will not give any details, but I am informed that some companies that we imagine are making large amounts of money on certain routes, last year lost very large amounts of money on those routes. My idea is this-and I think it is the idea of the government; my hon. friend wanted me to state it-that the question of government ownership and going into government ownership is one thing, and the question of doing the best you can with it is another. I am not going to discuss the question of public ownership. We have public ownership, but we want to do the best thing for the people of Canada with it. Unquestionably the small ships are very staunch ships, but on the Great Lakes this is what they have to compete with. To do any business on the lakes they have to be specialized, as I understand the matter. The lake trade is ore, coal and grain, and if these vessels cannot carry grain on the lakes, with prospects of getting some return cargo, we cannot get a cheap rate. Take one of these vessels of ours on the lakes, staunch though it may be, a good ship for its size; admitting all that, it cannot to my mind possibly compete in the grain carrying trade with a ship of the whale-back kind. Such a ship is specially constructed with its machinery in the stem with practically the entire remainder of the ship open for cargo space.


William Duff: It carries five times the cargo.


George Perry Graham: Yes, and it is loaded or unloaded twice as easily. One can readily see that in order (to get the best results, we cannot, with a small ship, compete with that class of vessel. For package freight I think our smaller vessels are well adapted, and for coasting trade, for instance on some of the routes in the Old Land that were named by my hon. friend, I believe these smaller ships would be specially adapted. I hope for possibly that particular route for which they
fMr. Graham.]	|	,
would be specially adapted, a fair offer may be made for the smaller boats. This question was put to me the other day at one of the elevators. It is nothing against those smaller boats except for that particular grain carrying trade. One of our own elevators at Port Colborne suggested that they should be allowed to charge the smaller , vessels an extra rate for unloading. We asked why. To me it was rather peculiar that a government elevator should charge the government boats more for unloading. They proved to me conclusively that in the case of the larger boats they could unload twice as quickly as they could in that of the smaller boats, being able to use both derricks. I do not wish to go into further details. We want to do the best we can in regard to the suggestion made by the preceding board and the present one that we should, if possible, dispose of the smaller ships and in the meantime put to the greatest advantage the larger ships that we have.


William Findlay Maclean: I agree largely with what the minister says, but I wish to protest against the attitude of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), not because of his antagonism to the National Railways, but because of his attempt to discredit the railways owing to some reputed failure in connection with the boats built by the government of Canada.


William Duff: No; the two things are altogether separate.


William Findlay Maclean: 
Robert Forke: The term is all right as
applied'to steamers.


William Duff: What would you call them?


Mr. GERMAN:: The hon. gentleman will
understand that a tramp ship is not necessarily a poor ship.


William Findlay Maclean: I know quite
well what a tramp ship is. The point has been made that if the ships were really properly organized under a company they could handle the business better. A tramp ship is supposed to go around from place to place looking for cargo wherever it can find it, and when reference is made to our ships as being tramps I take it that that sense is implied. And that is what I object to. Now, I repeat that we have not an inferior class of ships for the money that we paid for them. The United States have a large number of poor ships on their hands, and the man in charge of their marine 'has recommended a national policy in connection with them. We are not going to sell our ships as mere junk. Let us keep them until we can find reasonable employment for them. It has gone out now that the government is prepared to receive proposals for the smaller ships, and I
believe that if we keep the larger vessels and really make an effort to get work for them we shall find the Canadian flag in various parts of the world.


William Duff: In a statement which the
minister made last night he said that there was a loss on operation of the vessels for the first three months of 1923 of $457,770.13. A statement was issued by Sir Henry Thornton for the period up to December 31, 1922, showing certain items. I have not got that statement by me, but perhaps the minister can find it. However, I have my own notes. In the consolidated statement, the profit and loss account, the minister will find certain figures. One has reference to accounts receivable, amounting to $840,063.91. That could only mean the amount for freights owing to the different ships in commission. On the liability side there is an amount, balance of uncompleted voyages, of $346,159.63, which can only mean, if I am right, the probable expenses in connection with these vessels. If that is correct, then these two items in the statement show a profit of $493,904.28. I want to have an explanation of that. The minister says there is a deficit in the three months' operation of some $457,000, but if these two items are correct, then apparently there is a profit of $493,000.


George Perry Graham: In these accounts some
of the amounts receivable may be in the banks on the other side of the water. The losses to which my hon. friend refers are from January 1, to March 31, of this year. The others were for last year.


William Duff: That cannot be right because it says, "Balance on uncompleted voyages."


George Perry Graham: That is for last year.


William Duff: But the ships were still on the voyages and would complete them this year.


George Perry Graham: This is completed voyages.


William Duff: There is something wrong
somewhere.


George Perry Graham: I suppose that is the cost of the uncompleted voyages.


William Duff: Which would be completed in the three months of this year?


George Perry Graham: That might be accurate. It would only be an estimate, I suppose, of the actual cost of the uncompleted voyages.


William Duff: Very good. Then what is the $840,000 for accounts receivable? Is that for uncompleted voyages or for voyages which have been completed and freights which have not been remitted?
8up])ly-Merchant Marine


George Perry Graham: I imagine it would be largely freights unremitted from some other companies. It might foe interchange of freight, due maybe from the Canadian National Railways or some other lines. But it would be bills receivable generally speaking.


William Duff: Would not some of it apply to these uncompleted voyages?


George Perry Graham: I think not.


William Duff: Then these vessels on the uncompleted voyages would have no freight to go against the 1840,000?


George Perry Graham: I would not say that.


William Duff: There is another matter I would like cleared up. I find that last night the minister spoke about the $500,000 paid in interest coming out of the surplus of $1,000,000 shown on December 31st, 1920. Will the minister state if he has some further information in regard to this?


George Perry Graham: I find I was too modest. There was a difference last night in regard to $1,000,000, if I remember correctly, out of which I said I understood $500,000 had been paid in interest. Whenever there are any surplus earnings from these boats they pay interest on the notes the government holds against the companies. Now, that whole $1,000,000 was paid in interest.


William Duff: When?


George Perry Graham: As per statement on page 17 of the annual report for 1922. So the whole $1,000,000 we were discussing last night was returned in interest on notes held by the government.


Arthur Meighen: That is by boats that were paying?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I want to say a word with regard to the reason given by the minister for handing over to the White Star line Canadian National freight. He intimated that the Canadian National Railway Company was anxious to get part of the immigration business. My comment is that I do not think passenger traffic is of very much value to a railway. It is true it is better to have the maximum number of passengers for the trains you are running; but this is not the paying traffic of a railway, it is the freight that makes a railway go. So I do not see on that basis why we should be catering particularly for passenger traffic at the expense of freight. But the case doubly deserves consideration

when we have a Mercantile Marine too. We want passenger traffic for it, whatever it may be. Passenger traffic I think pays on the water, but it does not pay on the land. Consequently we want all the traffic we can get for our Mercantile Marine. I cannot subscribe to the theory that we ought to be giving our Canadian National freight to the White Star line in order that we may get a few immigrants off their boats. I suggest to the minister that he get all the freight he can for 'his own line, and by so doing he will get all the passengers he can for his ocean lines.
M,r. DUFF: There is another question I would ask. The $1,700,000 does not appear in the 1922 statement. When was this passed over by the government to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?


George Perry Graham: That would be passed over, I think, in November. I am only speaking from memory. There was a $1,000,000 expenditure by Governor General's warrant, and then $700,000 was added in the estimate that went through but a few days ago. I imagine that the two sums were to pay accrued indebtedness for the past year.


William Duff: The money was paid over
then before December 31st, 1922, when the last statement was made up?


George Perry Graham: Not all of it. The million dollars would be, but the seven hundred thousand dollars only went through the House the other night.


William Duff: That has not been paid?


George Perry Graham: I would not say, I do not know.


William Duff: It was not paid in 1922?


George Perry Graham: No.


William Duff: I notice by the statement they only account for something over $4,000,000 paid by the government to the Merchant Marine. WTe voted $4,200,000 last session and $1,000,000 by Governor General's warrant, but the statement only shows, $4,750,000.


George Perry Graham: It might not have been paid over before December 31st. It was late in the autumn when it was passed. Of course, it was to pay accounts for that year.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: As representing a western constituency, I wish to emphasize that this is not a matter merely of eastern or local importance. It should be clearly understood, it seems to me, that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine is an essential part of the great transportation system of which the

Supply-Merchant Marine
Canadian National Railways form the main portion. Two questions have arisen in the course of this debate, one as to the suitability of the boats. While that has been emphasized by some hon. members, I do not think it has been made clear that these boats are not suitable for the trade, or could not readily be adapted for it. But we have had put forward frankly as the major contention, the fundamental opposition on the part of some members to government or national ownership. I for one was very glad to hear the minister state that the government intended to give the Canadian Government Merchant Marine a fair trial.
I should like to say that in visiting some of these boats and talking with the officers and men I was struck by the fact that already there is developing a very great loyalty on the part both of the officers and crews towards the Canadian government service. Further than that, some of the men who know the shipping history in the provinces down by the sea have urged upon me that we should preserve our Government Merchant Marine as a safeguard against the shipping trust-shall I call it?-which has grown up on the Atlantic seaboard. They say that some years ago a great many Canadian seamen were practically driven from Canadian waters because of the encouragement given to other boats, ordinarily called "Norwegian" boats, which were then introduced. Later the same group who had assisted the Norwegians became interested in steel, coal and other industrial concerns and were given special consideration at the expense of Canadian seamen. Still later, oriental crews were employed in the coastwise trade. It also should be pointed out particularly that some of these same big interests are today operating on the Great Lakes, as has been revealed in the reports of the commission investigating those matters. It would appear that if we are to prevent a monopoly of the financial and industrial interests which might very readily control the shipping both on the lakes and on the ocean, we shall have to own and control our own ships. We need, of course, in addition, a great deal more in the way of inspection, and also the services of some commission which will deal with the whole question of freight rates. There may be, as pointed out, the advisability of getting rid of some of these ships. Undoubtedly we ought to mark their present values down to present market prices. Some hon. members tell us that these ships are of very little use, and that they would have to be sold for very little. I suggest they be marked down to the fair market value of to-day, and then we
can treat with the profit and loss on that basis, not on the basis of any inflated or fictitious war value. These are details of administration but I should urge that we would do nothing whatever to impair the present service or make it difficult to carry out the underlying principle of government ownership and control.


William Duff: Is it a fact that Sir Henry Thornton, who is president of Canadian Mercantile Marine, Limited, is also a director of Canada Steamships, Limited?


George Perry Graham: Yes:	The Grand Trunk
system has been represented on that board for some years; there are traffic arrangements between them. Sir Henry Thornton holds no stock in Canada Steamships Limited and has no interest in that concern except to the extent of seeing that we get our full share of the lake traffic. Mr. Dalrymple, I think, had represented the Grand Trunk on that board, and Mr. Hanna himself the Canadian National. Upon the two being amalgamated they asked the president to go on the board. It is immaterial whether he is on or not; one of the other directors would do just as well. As I say, Sir Henry Thornton has no interest whatever in Canada Steamships except to see that the Canadian National gets its share of the business.


William Duff: We cannot expect lower freight rates if Sir Henry Thornton is a director of Canada Steamships Limited. I say it is a mistake for him to be a director of that line.


Arthur Meighen: Two years ago it was much worse than a mistake; it was a "crime."


William Duff: A crime, then. I am still willing to call it a crime.


Arthur Meighen: I can remember that the hon. member for Lunenburg was at that time even more emphatic on the subject than his leader was. There were assertions about an "interlocking directorate-"


William Duff: All right; I have not changed my views in that respect.


Arthur Meighen: I notice that. "Interlocking directorates"; "inter-related business," "superorganization,"-all these things were the curse of the country and the outstanding instance was the presence of Mr. Hanna on the board of Canada Steamships Limited.


Milton Neil Campbell: Has any effort been made by the government to prevent the Canadian Government Merchant Marine from going into the areas covered by these steamship lines? It is repeatedly emphasized in



Supply-Merchant Marine
this debate that the Canadian Government Mercantile Marine should he used in an effort to break up these combines. We have undisputed evidence at the present time that there is a combine which is helping to raise the rates. I had some extracts to read on this point, but it is a little late now. If the vote is held over till after recess I might deal with them.


George Perry Graham: That matter will be discussed when a report from the committee of the House is presented; it is not discussabie at this stage, or I would have dealt with it during the consideration of these items.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. CHURCH:: I do not wish to unduly
detain the committee as I understand the minister is anxious to get away and I think he has been very patient throughout this discussion. But I wish to enter my protest against the proposed sale of twenty-seven ships of the Canadian Mercantile Marine. I have had twenty-five years' experience as a harbour commissioner and solicitor for vessel owners in the district from which I come and I wish to say that if the National Railway system is ever to become a success it must have lake and ocean services. One of the main reasons why the Canadian Pacific Railway has been such a striking success is because it has vessels engaged in the ocean and lake service as feeders. It is now proposed to sell these twenty-seven ships. Why do the management not sell their hotel and railway services also? If they are going to get rid of one agency for the building up of their business, why not dispose of them all? For my part I would not sell a tug, or a scow, or a dredge on the strength of the information that has been placed before the committee during this debate. I will go further and say that I do not believe the proposed sale commends itself to the wisdom and judgment of the country. The people who are concerned in shipments on the Great Lakes to-day want competition. A commission has conducted an inquiry into lake freight rates and practically before its report has been brought down, certainly before it has ever been considered by the House, and after the commission has taken considerable evidence, the recommendation is made that these twenty-seven ships be sold. These vessels were not built altogether for

use to-day; they were intended to meet the needs of the future. I do not know of any other country in the world that is proposing to dispose of the ships in its possession in the manner that is contemplated here. Of what avail is the expenditure which Canada has made on its inland harbours, its ocean ports, and its canals if, before we have actually established the necessary ocean and lake services that are so urgently required, we cripple one of the agencies necessary to bring about cheaper transportation? With all due respect to the gentlemen who compose the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Sir Henry Thornton is not a "cure all" for the transportation ills of,this country, far from it, some of the things recommended by the management of the National Railways and Merchant Marine do not commend themselves to us on this side of the House. How is it that so many private people all over Canada and the United States want to buy these vessels? It is said that these ships cannot navigate the lakes. I would point out that nine of them were built at Colling-wood, others at Port Arthur, and others again at Toronto, Midland and other places and they can do lake work on the Great Lakes. I wish to enter my emphatic protest against the proposed sale. I do so as the representative of an inland port which is spending twenty-six millions on harbour improvements.
As showing the need for improved transportation facilities on the lakes, I would point out that there is a Kirkwood shed in Toronto to-day twice the size of this chamber which is so full of freight that no more can be squeezed into it. The Kirkwood Company have illustrated with one vessel the success which can be made in operating on the lakes. They have applied to the government to be allowed to take over two or three more vessels, having demonstrated to the municipalities along the shore of lake Ontario that they can successfully manage lake shipping. I am very much surprised at the action of the government in recommending this sale. Stress has been laid upon the fact that these ships were built during the war and some ask why they were built at all. This is not relevant but they were built for war emergency, to add to shipping tonnage and help unemployment.
During the years 1916, 1917, and 1918 the unemployment conditions were such that the shipbuilding industry was a blessing to the large cities of Canada. That industry gave employment to twenty-six different classes of labour including ship carpenters, pattern makers, wheelwrights, engineers, skilled plate

Supply-Merchant Marine
workers, and boiler makers. They were all skilled workers and the most of them consisted of returned soldiers. During their service at the front they were only paid $1.10 a day and on returning to Canada were badly in need of employment. That is one of the reasons why so many of these ships were built. I think the difficulty in the way of the successful operation of these ships would be overcome if the government would engage the services of practical marine men. The whole of the vessels in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine could then be re-routed in such a way as to give results that would not only pay the fixed charges but leave a handsome profit.
It has been said that public ownership is responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves in this matter. That is not the case. If these ships were re-routed in the coasting and lake trade, put to other uses and given a fair trial, it would be seen after the lapse of two or three years what a great success would be achieved. The Canadian Pacific Company has for years had an admirably managed and most successful service on the ocean and on the upper lakes. The Canada Steamship Company has also been operating a lake passenger and freight service. The operation of its ships in the Niagara district and on the St. Lawrence has been a success. Unfortunately this company has frozen out competitors on a number of routes, for example, on the north shore of lake Ontario between Toronto and Belleville. Having freed themselves from competition they can charge whatever they like in the way of passenger and freight rates. The vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine offered us the prospect of relief from these excessive charges but the action of the government seems likely to prevent its realization.
I do not wish to occupy an undue amount of time-I think the House has sat far too long; I would not complain if prorogation were taking place to-night-the federal Australian parliament can do its work in ten weeks, so should we-but I would direct attention to page 51 of the report on lake freight rates wherein it is set forth that a monopoly exists, that there is no competition at the present time, and that conditions are not what they should be. The lake ports are congested, and there is no regulation of the rates on grain, iron ore, coal and package freight. The more I study this problem the more I am convinced that a mistake has been made in regard to the disposition of these ships. I repeat, they were not built simply for the purposes of to-day. What was contemplated was to provide for the needs of the future and if we part with these vessels now we will be making a terrible mistake. No other country in the world is taking such a step as that. Great Britain was wise enough to foresee the possibilities that underlay the combination of coal and steel, and the great part transportation facilities would play in their development.
The greatest industrial expansion of England did not come from Cobdenism and free trade, but from the union of steel and coal. The great British navy started and as a merchant marine fleet. Seventy-five years ago men of war were added to it. There were no dreadnoughts in those days. Drake, Frobisher and Hawkins were men of the merchant marine, and they went out to the seven seas of the world and made England the great maritime country it is to-day. The Americans have taken a leaf out of their book. They had a conference in Washington. Did they adhere to the terms of the conference? No. Have all the war plants been reduced to a peace standing? No. I know that many of the shipbuilding plants have been busy lately constructing ships on the Atlantic seaboard-war plants turned into peace plants and building ships for their merchant marine. You will see they are busy building ships by private contract for private owners and also building some for the government. Very shortly the United States will go out to the seven seas of the world, and they are going out to the seven seas to get the balance of trade; they will catch up with England's merchant marine, surpass her and will they hope become the mistress of the seas, so far as the merchant marine is concerned.
In conclusion, I do not agree with this recommendation. We have spent, I think,. $900,000,000 jn direct and indirect aid to the railways of Canada. The deficits-were last night placed by the minister' at about $6,000,000 and all we are asked to vote to-night is $1,500,000. I think that all the money that requires to be voted here to-night is just sufficient to meet the actual out-of-pocket charges, because you do not require to vote depreciation and interest-on railways or the merchant fleet, which you own yourself. Therefore, I say the country can very well afford a million and a half this year to give the Merchant Marine another trial for two or three more years, not only on the ocean services but on the lake services. I believe if the government gives it a trial it will get an increased business; if the ships are re-routed,

Supply-Merchant Marine
they will get not only the coasting trade, but the smaller vessels will get the business on the Great Lakes. There is a great opening for these freighters on the lakes. They can come down through lake Erie. and lake Ontario, down the St. Lawrence and go out along the seaboard and also do a coasting trade. That was shown by the report laid before the government a year or two ago. Is it a proper thing to sell ships when the market is flooded and gutted? A large number of boats along the Hudson are offered for sale but the owners will not sell them just now because they hope to get a better price than that offered. At present the market is glutted and it is no time to make the sale which has been proposed. The Merchant Marine can be utilized to carry coal and can be converted into ships which will carry cattle to the Old Country, and other packet freight from the Maritime provinces to the head of the lakes including coal.
It has been said that the Merchant Marine representatives sat in at the meetings of the Atlantic Combine, and they have been criticized for it. Notwithstanding that, the head of the Canadian National Railways becomes a director of the great monopoly, the Canada Steamship Company. Sir Henry Thornton cannot serve two masters. He never should have become a director of this large shipping concern, the Canada Steamships Company, which froze out all the smaller'companies carrying freight to Buffalo and Toronto from the head of the lakes. Yet the government allows one of its National Railway directors to become the head of this monopoly. It has been stated that he becomes such a director because the National Railways fh&s an exchange of traffic with the Canada ,'Steamship Company. It has an exchange *of traffic with the Michigan Central, Lake ;Shore and Baltimore and Ohio. Is it right that Sir Henry Thornton should then also become a director of these three American railways as well? I believe it is wrong and that the people will not approve of it.
I wish to utter my protest against the proposal before the Chair to-night. I believe the time will come when we will see that it is a mistake. These ships were built for Canada, to give the National Railways a chance, and to act as feeders for them on the lakes and the ocean, in order to see what could be done in an economical way by assisting water-borne traffic to reduce the great freight charges which the people out West and throughout Canada are paying to-day.
fMr. Church.]


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I desire to call the attention of the minister to an inquiry that was made in the Senate and which reads:
Upon what terms were the freighters T. J. Drummond and J. A. McKee leased to the Great Lakes Transportation Company for the season of 1923 as to the price to be paid for the use thereof and conditions (if any) as to price to be charged for carrying grain.
As I understand it, these are first-class freighters capable of carrying 100,000 bushels of grain, and they are at the present time actually engaged in that traffic. I would like the minister to state the terms upon which these freighters were leased to the Great Lakes Transportation Company, the length of the term, and all the other particulars. Will the minister state whether he considers it wise and proper that at this time, when it is alleged that there is a combination, these vessels should be in the employ of those who are alleged to be in the combine?


George Perry Graham: It is a very general practice to lease a ship at so much per day. I do not know what the rental is. We have a number of ships of our own on the Great Lakes fully equal to any demand that will be made upon us.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There are three other vessels the Kearsage, the Arthur Orr and the George Orr.


George Perry Graham: Those vessels do not belong to the Merchant Marine.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment) moved the second reading of Bill No. 205 to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 3-Disabilities in respect of which pensions claimed.
Herbert Meredith Marler: I think perhaps a slight amendment would improve this section. The section says:
Pensions shall be awarded to or in respect of members of the forces who have suffered disability resulting from injury or disease or an aggravation thereof, in accordance with the rates set out in schedule A of this act.
That refers to disability pensions which are always payable to the man himself. I think if the words "or in respect of" were struck

Pension Act
out of the first line, it would be an improvement. Likewise on page 2, at the bottom, I find the words-
And in respect of members of the forces who have died, in accordance with the rates set out in schedule B of this act, when the injury or disease or aggravation thereof resulting in disability or death in respect of which the application for pension is made was attributable to military service as such.
I think if the words-
In respect of wh-ich the application for pension is made
-are struck out in that place, and also the same repetition in lines 5 and 6, the clause will be made clearer. I throw out this suggestion to the minister for what it is worth. I have studied the clause with some care.


Mr. CALDWELL:: It looks as though it would cut out soldiers' dependents if you cut out the words "in respect of" in the first line of clause 3 (a). As proposed to be amended it would read:
Pension shall be awarded to members of the forces.
The expression "in respect of" would refer to pensions in respect of their dependents. I may be wrong, but that is my understanding.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The pensions in schedule A are pensions payable to the men themselves, not payable to dependents at all. The pensions in schedule B, which is referred to in the following part of the same clause, are pensions payable to dependents. The only man who can receive a pension under schedule A of the act is the man himself.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I beg to disagree with my hon. friend-I am sorry. Schedule A refers to the men themselves, but it also refers to:
Additional pensions for children for above ranks, first child, second child-
And so on. Children are dependents. That is why the words "in respect of" are in the clause.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: And the pensioner's wife and children are entitled to a certain proportion of the pension as well as the pensioner himself, and this would be cut out if those words were removed.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is correct.


Mr. LADNER:: The first line of paragraph (c) of clause 3, subclause (1) reads:
An applicant shall not be deprived of pension.
He is only an applicant, and until he gets his pension, he cannot be deprived of. it.
. Would it not be better to use the word "denied"? I think that would make the clause
clearer. The remainder of the paragraph describes the obstacle that will not stand in his way to a pension.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Of course we have the same purpose in view. Does my hon. friend believe, if we replace the words "deprived of" by the word "denied," that would make the clause clearer?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes, and less capable of technical construction.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no objection to the change in this case.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I move that the words " deprived of " be struck out in the first line of clause 3, subclause (1) (c), and that the word "denied" be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. LEWIS:: Clause 3 (b) "pre-enlistment disabilities," provides in the fifth line that: No pension shall be paid for a disability or disabling condition which at such time was wilfully concealed.
It seems to me, if any man has served in the theatre of war and has passed before the army officials and the doctors, the onus should not be on the man himself. I do not see that it is possible for any man to conceal wilfully some disability and pass before three or four doctors at least three times before he gets into the actual theatre of war. If such a condition did exist, if those doctors failed in their duty to find such a disability and the man actually worked in the theatre of war, the responsibility is not on the man himself, but on the doctors and officials who allowed him to pass.


Mr. POWER:: What would the hon. gentleman do in the case of a man who went overseas with a glass eye and who did not inform the doctors that he had a glass eye? The doctors, perhaps, did not notice it, or if they did, they passed it over. Would the hon. member grant this man a pension for the loss of an eye if he returned in the same condition as when he went over?


Arthur John Lewis: If the army had any doctors who passed a man with a glass eye and who had no more insight into human nature the blame is upon the government.


Mr.   POWTER@: Would the hon. gentleman give the soldier a pension?


Arthur John Lewis: Who is to prove that he had! a glass eye before?


Charles Gavan Power: I am giving an extremecase. I know of the case of a man who had a glass eye and who went overseas. He is in
Pension Act

perfect health, and he has the same glass eye as the one he went over with. I do not think he is entitled to a pension.


Arthur John Lewis: Is he claiming a pension
under the disability clause?


Charles Gavan Power: Not at all.


Arthur John Lewis: Then the case settles itself.


Leon Johnson Ladner: If we are at the end of section 3, I should like to submit to the committee an amendment to be inserted after section 3 as section 3A dealing with the question of attributability. In paragraph (a) of sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of this bill, we find the words:
Was attributable to or was incurred during such military service.
There arises the very important question of what is commonly - called "attributability." Around that has been built up by the Pension board a procedure in which frequently the onus of proof in such cases, as has been contended by many, is placed upon the applicant. That is, when you have a case of some doubt, like neurasthenia or tuberculosis or something of that kind, the applicant puts in an application, and although the Pension board say that there is no question of onus of proof, yet the experience of many, including my own, shows in fact that there is, according to the interpretation of the act by the Pension board. They say that, in their opinion, "attributability to service" does not exist. The same problem arose in Great Britain, and there they passed a special act this year. I have taken out the main section of that to add as clause 3A to this bill. It is of such importance that I think it is wise to read the proposed amendment carefully in full to the committee so that the}'' will understand it. I propose to add as clause 3A:
3A. For the purpose of the Pension Act and amendments thereto and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the provisions of the said act and amendment thereto, or any other act, where a member of the force who has left the naval, military or air force service is, or at any time after the date of his leaving that service has been found to be suffering from tuberculosis, neurasthenia, cancer, or any other disease or incapacity which could reasonably be attributed to war service, such member shall be deemed to be suffering from a disease attributable to, or aggravated by naval, military or air force service, as the case may be, unless or until it is shown that the tuberculosis or neurasthenia or cancer or other disease or incapacity was neither attributable to nor aggravated by, such service; and for the purpose of this provision, acceptance for such service shall be conclusive that at the time of joinog such service the officer or man was not suffering from any such disease or incapacity.
That is practically the provision in the English act which seeks to overcome this difficulty. It will be seen that the applicant

must first establish a reasonable case; he must first submit to the Board of Pension
Commissioners a prima facie case. The applicant is in a somewhat awkward situation. A widow, for example, may not have available the evidence which the law would make a conclusive case. So that when it is shown that a man enlisted as Al, and apparently was in good physical condition when he went overseas, that he did service, and perhaps was given some hospital attention, and then returning was suddenly found to have tuberculosis, he could perhaps show a prima facie case. The effect of this amendment would be that unless the board could show by evidence or medical testimony that the applicant or the person suffering from any disease or incapacity did not have such disease or incapacity, proof of which must be established in order to comply with the provisions of the act, then the applicant must be entitled to the benefit of the doubt. I do not know whether I have made myself perfectly clear. However, let me state the matter again to put it beyond all possibility of misunderstanding. If it appears that the applicant has all the material facts in his favour, then it is to be presumed that he has a prima facie case. The board may show by medical testimony, or in any other manner consistent with the evidence in cases of this kind, that the applicant is not entitled to a pension because, perhaps, the disease or incapacity was not attributable to war service, or for a number of other reasons which would deprive him of his pension under the provisions of the act. I beg to move the amendment which I have read, a copy of which I am sending to the minister.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I must read it a couple of times before I can say anything upon it; it is rather complicated.


Mr. CARROLL:: Tubercular patients, I think, have given to the Pension board more worry than any other class of applicants; and when I say that I simply mean that their cases have been involved in so much medical technicality that, I am sorry to say, I do not think tubercular applicants have received that fair meed of justice which they deserved at the hands of their countrymen. I am afraid, however, that my hon. friend (Mr. Ladner) is going very far in his amendment. If he would just confine it to tubercular and cancerous patients, I would strongly support the amendment, but when he adds the words "or other disease or incapacity" it seems to me he is going far afield. My idea in rising now, though, is to ask the minister to inform the

Pension Act
committee whether the amendments to the Pension Act are in any way loosening up in regard to tubercular patients. I understand that this is one of the very serious questions which the commission, whose report has been submitted, have had to deal with. I have not had time to read the amendments through, and the minister might enlighten the committee as to how tubercular patients are to be benefited under them to any greater extent than they were under the original act.


William Findlay Maclean: Hon. members
have received a circular from the Dominion Alliance. Have they been consulted in reference to the drafting of the bill?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Everybody has been consulted. In reply to my hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) I might make a few observations in reference to the principle of the bill. I might have stated -them before the Speaker left the chair, but I will repeat now what I said two or three days ago when the Pension estimates were under consideration. When the original act was passed, what is known as the "insurance principle" was embodied in it. The insurance principle means that a man who served between the declaration of war and the declaration of peace will be pensioned for any disability which has been incurred by him during his service, whether such disability is or is not attributable to that service. It was, as Mr. Rowell said in the House when the bill was introduced in 1919, an insurance principle which was larger than the principle of any pension law of any other country in the worid. I repeat, that clause 11 of the bill of 1919-which is the vital clause because it provides for the awarding of pensions-stipulates that a pension should be awarded for or in respect of any disability when such disability not only was attributable to service but had been incurred during service although not directly related thereto. Let me give the House an example. Two soldiers are in charge of a truck loaded with munitions on the way to the front to serve a battery. They stop the truck and one of the men jumps off, crosses the ditch, runs into an orchard, climbs a tree and picks some apples. Whilst doing so he falls and breaks a limb. This is a disability incurred on service but not attributable to service. The other man remaining on the truck has the misfortune to lose an arm and a leg through an enemy aeroplane bombing the truck and exploding the munitions. This man's disability is attributable to service as such. Hon. members will see the difference. In 1919, when the first Pension Act was introduced by the Hon. Mr. Rowell, it was stated that any disability incurred during service would be pensioned. This principle disappeared one year later by the amending act of 1920. I do not want to delay the House unduly, but I think this explanation will enable hon. members to understand the purpose of the present amendments.
When in 1919 Mr. Rowell was in charge of the legislation then introduced he was asked what it meant. In reply he said:
Under the law as it now stands-
As he presented it.
-our pension system is really an insurance.
Then Mr. Griesbach-now Senator Gries-bach-asked him:
Why introduce that element?
Mr. Rowell: Our law as it stands is broader than the pension law in any other country, so far as we know. The insurance feature which I have mentioned is not in any other law, so far as I am aware. In that respect we give the soldier the benefit of insurance during the whole period of the war.
Mr. Griesbach: That is the principle that underlies all pensions.
Mr. Rowell: No. The principle underlying all pension is disability due to service. Under our pension law, if a soldier contracts disease under a purely normal condition having no relation at all to service, he becomes entitled to pension. It is really an insurance system.
The law was passed in that form, so that from September 1, 1919, to September 1 of the following year, when the law was amended as I shall point out in a few moments, the principle underlying the Pension Act was that any disability incurred during service was pensionable.
Let us come to one year later when the act was amended.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What year was that?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The year 1920. In that year old section 11 was repealed, and the following was substituted therefor:
The commision shall award pensions to or in respect of members of the forces who have suffered disability, in accordance with the rates set out in schedule A of this act, and in respect of members of the forces who have died, in accordance with the rates set out in schedule B of this act, when the disability or death in respect of which the application for pension is made was attributable to military service.
The first act read:
Was attributable to or was incurred or aggravated during military sendee.
When this was proposed to the Pension committee-of which I was a member-the representatives of the Pension board were asked whether this amendment would affect the members of the Canadian Expeditionary
3S52
Pension Act

Force, and the answer was, "No, the C.E.F. men are not going to be affected." In order to make my assertion clearer, let me read a few words from the evidence given before that committee by representatives of the Pension board. A question was asked Dr. Burgess-who is one of the medical advisers of the Pension board-as to what would be the effect of the amendment. His answer was:
Prior to the late war pensions were paid for disabilities attributable bo service-
Prior to the late war.
That was amended for soldiers disabled in the present war, in order that pensions could be paid for disabilities whilst on service It is now the intention, I understand, to return to the previous stand, that is, that pensions should be paid for disabilities attributable to service.
He was asked:
The point is raised that this constitutes a distinct breach of contract. The men enlisted on the understanding that if anything happened during the period of service the state would pension them.
Dr. Burgess answered:
This will not affect late members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force injured during the war.
This makes it absolutely clear as to the intention at that time. Further, Mr. Arthurs, one of the present members of this House, said:
That should be made abundantly clear.
The chairman, who was Mr. Cronyn, then a member of the House, answered:
We agree to that, and it must be noted.
Further, Mr. Margeson, who was then one of the pension commissioners said:
We are anxious to make this change because the permanent forces are brought under this act.
So it was made abundantly clear to the committee that as the Canadian Expeditionary Force at that time no longer existed, and as at the same time a certain number of soldiers were remaining under the colours as part of the permanent forces, pensions should be awarded to members of the permanent forces only when the disability or the death was attributable to military service.


William F. Carroll: Suppose a person who
was in the Canadian Expeditionary Force did not make his application for pension until ten or eleven months after his discharge, say, in 1919, he would come under the act of 1921, and there would be a breach of contract, I would think, with that person. There Rave been very many complaints on that score.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I was? coming to that.
In 1919 the insurance principle was incorporated in the act. In 1920 the provision embodying that principle was struck out of the act and it was made clear that disability should be pensionable only when attributable to military service. But the statement was repeated in the committee of this House that that would apply only to men who remained on service in the permanent force; that the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force would not be affected in the slightest degree. That was in
1920.	In the following year, 1921, the act was made a little bit narrower by the addition of the two words "as such" to clause 11, meaning that no pension could be awarded unless the disability or the death in respect to which the application was made was attributable to military service as such. Now,
I	must go back for a moment to the act of 1919, because there is a paragraph in section'
II	with which we must be familiar if we are to understand clearly what has happened. The paragraph to which I refer is as follows:
Provided, further, that when a member of the forces has suffered disability or death after the declaration of peace, no pension shall be paid unless such disability was incurred or aggravated or such death occurred, as the direct result of military service.
The following year this whole clause was wiped out and the clause to which I referred a moment ago was adopted by the House, on the understanding that only the members of the permanent force would be affected by the new clause 11, that so far as the men of the Canadian Expeditionary force were concerned they would be pensionable under clause 11 as adopted in 1919. The proclamation of peace took place on the thirty-first of August, 1921, and the Pension board thereupon proceeded to interpret the act as it had been amended in 1920 and 1921. In other words, we were face to face with a situation which was absolutely untenable, namely, that if a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force died five minutes before midnight on the thirty-first of August,
1921,	his dependents were pensionable, because his death was the result of disability incurred on service but not attributable to service, whereas if he had the misfortune to die ten minutes later, five minutes after midnight, his dependents could not be pensioned, because he had died after the declaration of peace, though of the same disability incurred in the same manner. The Pension board then sent out a circular or a minute in which they informed all the medical advisers that in future pensions should

Pension Act
be awarded in respect to disability or death only when such disability or death was attributable to military service as such. During the last months of 1921 this new principle was applied not only to members of the permanent force but to members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and numerous complaints on that account came from returned men in all parts of the country. They were especially numerous and pronounced during the first months of the year 1922, culminating in the presentation of their case by representatives of the veterans in June of last year and the decision to appoint a royal commission to investigate these matters. Now the royal commission has held its investigation on that phase of the subject, and its report is to the effect that there has been a breach of contract with members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force in regard to pensions; that it was made clear in 1920 that any amendment then passed was to be applied
9 p.m. not to the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force but only to members of the permanent force, and the commissioners recommended that the act should be restored as it was in 1919. The purpose of this bill .therefore, is to restore the insurance principle as embodied in the act introduced by Mr. Rowell and passed by the House in that year.
Now, how could we do this? We amend the interpretation clause; we say that the "war" means that period between the fourth day of August, 1914, and the thirty-first day of August, 1921, both days inclusive. Then we drafted a new clause 11. I say "we," because I did not myself undertake to draft the clause. I knew what the spirit of it should be, and I asked more than one experienced draftsman to draft it for me. I have submitted the redrafted clause to a number of eminent lawyers and they say it carries out the purpose the royal commission had in mind and the desires of the veterans generally, and that it fulfils the meaning of the act of 1919. We decided that clause 11 should be in two parts, subsection 1 and subsection 2, that subsection 1 should deal with men who had rendered service during the war and subsection 2 with men who had rendered service after the war. If hon. gentlemen will refer to the bill before them they will see that clause 3 reads in part as follows:
(11). (1) In respect of military service rendered during the war,-
If you read paragraph (a) from first to last you will see that it restores the insurance principle. It says:
(a) Pensions shall be awarded to or in respect of members of the forces who have suffered disability resulting from injury or disease or an aggravation thereof, in accordance with the rates set out in schedule A of this act, and in respect of members of the forces who have died, in accordance with the rates set out in schedule B of this Act, when the disability resulting from injury or disease or the aggravation thereof in respect of which the application for pension is made or the injury or disease or the aggravation thereof resulting in the death in respect of which the application for pension is made, was attributable to or was incurred during such military service.
This is a complete restoration of the insurance principle as it existed in 1919. It is in the opinion of the royal commission, I believe it is in the opinion of the veterans generally, and, as far as I can judge, it carries out the purpose absolutely. Now, the second subsection says:
In respect of military service rendered after the war.
That is in respect of service rendered by men who remained in the force after the declaration of peace. I think that "force" must mean the permanent force, or perhaps some other body of men in the militia still serving although the war was over. Now in respect of these men it is said that-
Pensions shall be awarded to or in respect of members of the forces who have suffered disability-
I will not read the whole clause-when the disability or death-
-was attributable to military service as such.
So, repeating myself and in order to make myself perfectly clear to hon. members, there are two classes of men: Men who served between the 4th August, 1914 and the 31st August, 1921, when the declaration of peace was made, for whom the insurance principle is restored, and a second class of men who served after the declaration of peace and who are still, I believe, in service but in regard to whom no pension shall be awarded unless the disability is attributable to military service as such. There are a number of subsections but these, of course, extend the principle.


Mr. MANION:: I understand the minister to point out that there is really no change in the spirit of the act itself. This is simply clearing up the spirit of the act. Am I correct?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is right.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask the minister a question? He has given a very clear and concise statement-


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not through yet.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I beg your pardon.
Pension Act


Mr. BEL  AND@: I am sorry but my hon. friend will have an opportunity of speaking again. The hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll) wants to know whether, as far as tubercular cases are concerned, this bill will place them in a better position than they occupied under the act as it was before. I say, yes by all means and in this manner: Under the act of 1920, if interpreted according to the letter and not the spirit, and under the act of 1921 which is still narrower, an ex-soldier suffering from tuberculosis could not receive a pension unless that tuberculosis was attributable to his service as such, whilst now if tuberculosis was incurred during his service whether it is due to the service or not he may receive a pension.


Mr. MacLAREN:: May I ask the minister a question to clear up a point which I think is not quite evident? Will the minister please look at the last few lines of paragraph (a).
It says:
-the application for pension is made or the injury or disease or the aggravation thereof resulting in the death in respect of which the application for pension is made, was attr.butable to or was incurred during such military service.
Would the minister make it quite clear what is involved in the term "military service?" Does that mean "in the actual field of warfare" or does it mean "service in Canada, or service in England?" How does he explain the term there "during such military service?"


Henri Sévérin Béland: I shall be pleased to explain to my hon. friend. One must read the whole of clause 11.
(1) In respect of military service rendered during the war.
So that paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) have reference to that first line in respect of military service rendered during the war. I hat means service rendered anywhere ' Canada, in England, in France, in Siberia or anywhere at all,-as long as the man was under the colours.


Robert James Manion: I understood the minister to answer me one way and I think he answered my hon. friend (Mr. Carroll) another way. In other words, I understood him to answer my hon. friend that according to the law as if was if a man took consumption or any form of tuberculosis, not attributable to service but during service, he would not have a pension in the past. That is what I understood him to say.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not say it was in the pension law, but under the interpretation of

the act as it existed in 1920 and 1921, and since then, he was not entitled to a pension.


Robert James Manion: I wanted to make that, clear. I certainly do not agree with the minister, at least that was not my understanding. My understanding was that any disability a man incurred during service has been pensioned right along.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Oh, no.


William F. Carroll: If it is attributable.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Oh no. There are 500 case? I am informed by the Pension board to-day.


Mr. IRVINE:: I wanted to ask the minister if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) would not bring out the spirit of the act even more clearly than the original form would?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not believe it would: I think it is too involved. I would not advise loading up section 11 as it has been drafted. It has been drafted carefully. It has been submitted to the royal commission and to the veterans, and they agree that as far as legislation goes this will meet the purpose. I do not say that no amendment can be made at all. I have just accepted one which appeared to me to make the meaning absolutely clearer; but I feel that the amendment my hon. friend has moved is not going to make things any easier in any way. That is my impression.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I would like to ask the minister a question just on the point of the subject matter of our discussion, that is in connection with the attributable feature of the bill. The last two lines say " attributable to military service." Now, the minister has given a very clear statement of the history of the law, and undoubtedly he is to be commended for reverting to the insurance principle. But all that the minister has said about the insurance principle, to which it is proposed to return to-day under this bill, does not at all relate to the point of my amendment or the subject matter of the discussion which followed it and in which I endeavoured to place the matter clearly be fore the committee. What I am getting at is this: Supposing a person has developed tuberculosis two years after the war. Before that person could claim a pension he muse establish attributability to the war because he may have got his disability under peace conditions after his discharge. In endeavouring to establish that his tuberculosis was attributable to the war he must produce certain evidence, the difficulties of which must

Pension Act
be apparent to every member of the committee. The difficulty for the applicant in the past has been that when he has brought all the evidence possible before the Pension board it has then been of such a kind as not to conclusively establish his claim to the satisfaction of the board. The result has been that the board have in many cases misinterpreted the law in their own way. My idea is to change the law so as to prevent such an interpretation. The board has taken the stand "We are not satisfied that this is attributable to the war, because the statute makes the positive assertion that the claim cannot be considered until it is established that the ailment is attributable to the war." And the board says it is not attributable. The effect of my proposed amendment is that, if the applicant shows a case which could reasonably be attributed to war service, and a considerable doubt exists, then the board, with all their expert knowledge, must give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant, unless they can say, "We have evidence on our files, and have medical testimony, to show that, although you have established a reasonable case, we have gone one step further and we can show that your case is not sufficiently sound, and that the facts do not show that this tubercular affection was attributable to war service." f am not raising this point as a purely personal matter. Many people have spoken to me about it, and some associations are endeavouring to have this change made. What objection could there possibly be, if a person makes out a reasonable case before a commission, to give that person the benefit of the doubt, unless the board can show that it is not reasonable, and that the man is not entitled to have the pension? In that respect, the proposed amendments do not touch the case at all. They relate to a different subject matter, namely the insurance principle, to which the minister has addressed his remarks.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Medically speaking, does my hon. friend contend that some diseases cannot be reasonably attributed to service?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I understand that in a case of cancer or carcinoma, after about the three years' period, medical testimony shows that it cannot be reasonably attributed to military service. But if it arose within one year, then it could reasonably be attributed to such service. In such a case, if the applicant is afflicted with cancer within eight months or one year, and surrounding indications show that pains and so on existed prior to discharge, and while on military service, that would be a reasonable case, and should be allowed; unless the board can produce other testimony to show that, notwithstanding the reasonableness of the man's contention, there are stronger contentions to show that the cancer was not attributable to service.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am unable to see the difference which the hon. member refers to. First of all, during the first year, all men were treated by the department free of charge, and every case of disability that resulted during the first year, you might say after discharge from the service, has been treated and pensioned. Cancer may be attributed to service. I know of a case where cancer inside has been attributed to service,	where a	man	has	been
kicked by a horse during his service and the cancer developed two years later. In that case the man was pensioned. Why? Because the traumatism that he had suffered at the time of his service might have been the cause of his present disability.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I know of a case where, instead of being kicked by a horse, the person was injured in an aeroplane fall and developed a cancer, but the department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment considered the case was one of appendicitis and treated him for it, until they opened him up and found that he had cancer. Then they operated on him and he died. It was established on sworn affidavit that the man had the fall from an aeroplane, that he was injured, and that he complained of pains in the area where cancer subsequently developed. There were three affidavits to that effect. Subsequently he died, and in that case there was a reasonable presumption, as we say in this case, that the trouble could reasonably be attributed to war service, The commission held the opinion notwithstanding, that the cancer was not attributable to war service. My point is that that applicant should have received that pension, unless the commission could show, medically, or by something more than inference or medical theory, that he should have been denied the pension.


Henri Sévérin Béland: How would it serve the hon. member's purpose if he had his amendment in this case? How would the case be met by the amendment?


Mr. LOVETT:: And did the cancer develop after he was discharged?


Leon Johnson Ladner: We do not know that, because the doctors of the board treated him for appendicitis.

Pension Act


Lewis Johnstone Lovett: How long was that after he returned from the war?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Before he was discharged.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What prevented his friend from getting the pension? Was it the medical opinion?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: If this amendment were
to pass, how would he get the pension?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Because there was medical opinion on the other side and the applicant, under this section-


Henri Sévérin Béland: Medicine is not an exact science.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The applicant under this
section would have had a case which could reasonably be attributed to war service, and prima facie the applicant would have a right to the pension and the board would then be obliged to produce other evidence to rebut the presumption of the right of the applicant to a pension. The tubercular cases are really more in point.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In all sincerity, if the
hon. member had been sitting on the board, would he have awarded a pension in this case?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Most decidedly so.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is the reason why we provided for appeals.
- Mr. LADNER:	But the parliamentary
committee rendered a decision against the decision of the board.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is exactly why we
provide for appeal. It does not matter how you surround the law with amendment after amendment, which makes it so involved that not even a lawyer can see through it, if you have no appeal board or no appeal court you cannot give entire satisfaction. Perhaps this is a case that should be allowed.
I will conceive it to be a case that should be allowed; surely in this case, if my hon. friend's contention is right, that appeal will be sustained. We are going to provide for appeal. Do not try to involve the act, because by such an amendment you might destroy the purpose of the section as it is framed, and it has been framed with the greatest of care. I assure the hon. member there is no intention to deceive anybody there, and certainly no intention to deceive the returned man, because this is the carrying out of the recommendations of the commission.


Herbert Meredith Marler: In making any remarks
with respect to this amendment, I wish to recall to hon. members of this committee the remarks which I made last year when the report of the parliamentary committee on pensions and re-establishment was presented. I stated at that time, and I state again now, that in my opinion the country owes to every returned soldier the fullest and the best treatment which can possibly be given, compatible with the resources of the country; I think I used the words "the future welfare of the nation." I have not changed my mind in the very slightest degree since last year. I think that every returned man, and the dependent of every returned man who has died, should be given, not only a perfectly fair and equitable deal by this House and by the country, but in addition should be given the most generous treatment that can possibly be accorded him. On the other hand, I think you, Mr. Chairman, and all hon. members will admit that when any claim is made against the country, no matter from what source that claim may come, there should be a certain amount of substantiation, a certain amount of evidence adduced in support of that claim before the money of the people is paid out. That theory holds as regards returned men the same as regards any other citizens in Canada, excepting in this, that as regards returned men, any claim that they may have, direct or indirect, must and should be and, I am certain, is intended to be, treated with the utmost generosity in every particular.
The minister has explained to the committee to-night section 11 of the act. That section is the governing section of the whole act. He has explained the difference between the insurance principle and the "due to service" principle. He has told the committee that, under the act of 1919 the principle at that time was the insurance principle. Subsequently, in 1920, that principle was made the "due to service" principle. There was a very great distinction, and the distinction was this, that under the insurance principle any disability of any kind incurred on service, the slightest aggravation of any disability the seedier had was pensionable in full and his dependents also could have a pension. Under the "due to service" principle, the soldier had to show that the disability from which he was suffering was due to military service. That is now entirely wiped out and the insurance principle is returned to. Any disability from which a soldier may be suffering up to the 31st day of August, 1921, is pensionable, providing that it was incurred on service, or in any way attributable to

Pension Act
service, or in any way aggravated during military service. Those words are very significant, and they are premising the remarks which I intend to make on the amendment which my hon. friend (Mr. Ladner) has brought forward to-night. I want the committee to bear in mind the date whereof I speak, namely the 31st August, 1921. The war ended substantially on the 11th November, 1918. The Canadian Expeditionary Force was disbanded-I am speaking from memory now and I should like to be corrected il I am wrong-if I mistake not, on the 31jt December, 1920. All the soldiers were disbanded at that time; but notwithstanding that disbanding, the "incurred on service" principle, or the insurance principle is brought along to the 31st August, 1921. Any returned man or the dependent of any returned man has to show up to that date, many months after he took off the King's uniform, that the disability, no matter how slight, the aggravation, no matter how slight, is pensionable, not only for himself, but for all his dependents.
Now let me come to the point which my hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) brings up. I quite understand his point, which is this. He says that the onus of proof should not be on the returned man; that it should be entirely either on the country, the Pension board, or whoever acts for the country.


Leon Johnson Ladner: After a prima facie case
has been established.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I will read the amendment just in a moment. According to this, what has any returned man making a claim for pension to prove? He has to prove any illness, not necessarily an illness caused by a gunshot wound, not necessarily an illness which he might have suffered while he was overseas, but any illness at all which was incurred on service. If he has been damaged by reason of that illness incurred on service, even an ordinary illness which he might have had at home, he is pensionable, and if he dies as a result of that illness, his dependents are pensionable also.
Every man in the army has a medical history sheet. It is true that when men joined up in the army, their medical history sheets were not made out in the most careful manner; but while they were in the army, their medical history sheets were kept in a fairly accurate manner, and everything that occurred while a man was on service was entered on that medical history sheet. That is reasonable and proper proof as to the state of the man's health during his service. Then he left
the service. Some men were discharged on what is known as the short form. The short form simply discharged the man as fit. The long form gave a history of the man's condition at discharge. When a man reported on discharge that he was not physically fit, the long form was used, and that obviated many difficulties. But many men reported on the short form, and it is of those that I wish to speak at the present time. When a man was discharged out of the army on the short form as fit, he may have become sick one year, two years, three years after the 31st August, 1921, the date of the declaration of peace, and his record during the war, his medical history sheet may or may not have been clean. If he becomes sick years after the *>yar, he is pensionable provided that there is the slightest connection between his illness and the illness which occurred while he was on service. Mark this; this is not a question of a military illness, not a question of a wound which he might have received; but if he had a natural, ordinary illness on service and later on after discharge, notwithstanding the fact that he was discharged with a clean record, if there is any connection set up in any way between the last illness I speak of and the first illness, he is pensionable. That has been the practice.
I quite admit-and I am sure the hon. member who moved this amendment is actuated by the best possible motives-that some mistakes have been made in the past. But what does this bill bring down in that respect? This bill brings down the question which we will have an opportunity of discussing in a few moments of the boards of appeal. Some of us may have feelings on that subject; some may not think the boards of appeal, as proposed to be constituted, are correct; others may think they are correct. But there they are in the bill at the present time. Let me revert now to the position in which I was a few moments ago. That is to say, if a man falls sick after being discharged as fit, and he goes before the Board of Pension Commissioners, he has one examination. The board say: "No, you had a clean medical history sheet during your service. It is true you were not sick; it is true you are sick now. We can see no connection between your present illness and the illness' which you suffered on service. Therefore we cannot pension you." That man says: "I will appeal to the district appeal board," and he does so.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that the district review board can change the substance of law? My amendment
3S58
Pension Act

relates to the substance of law. It is a different proposition. An appeal would not affect that.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The district review board, as the act is constituted at the present time, can adjudicate, not only on questions of fact, but on questions of law.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But as it will be constituted.


Herbert Meredith Marler: As it will be constituted, it can adjudicate even on the question of the extent of the man's disability. It can adjudicate on anything it likes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But it cannot change the law.


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, it cannot change the law, but it can get at the very point which the hon. member has in mind. It can say that the man's illness is attributable to, or was incurred on service. There is not the slightest doubt that the board can adjudicate on that point. That is one of the main points for which these boards are constituted, and indeed when we come to discuss that part of the act some of us will probably question whether that is not, in fact, the main function of the board, to adjudicate on the question whether the illness is attributable to service or not.
Now let me come to my hon. friend's amendment. I repeat that so long as we understand what this amendment means, so long as hon. members desire to accept it, so long as parliament as now constituted desires to take upon its shoulders the burden that the amendment may entail, I have nothing to say. All I desire to do is to suggest to this committee what the effect of the amendment is; and I am not speaking from the point of view of dollars and cents, because dollars and cents are not the most important consideration in a matter of this description. But the question is, will the amendment unnecessarily, unfairly, and without sufficient opportunity of proof itself, involve the country and give to claimants an advantage to which they are not entitled? What does the amendment say? It was read rather hurriedly, but that was no fault of my hon. friend; I think the hon. gentleman introduced the amendment in perfect good faith. It says:
For the purpose of the Pension Act and amendments thereto, and notwithstand ng anything to the contrary in the provisions of the said act and amendments thereto, or any other act,-
Please note these words:
-where a member of the force who has left the naval, military or air force service is, or qt any time after

the date of his leaving that service has been found to be suffering from tuberculosis, neurasthenia, cancer, or any other disease or incapacity-
In other words, notwithstanding the fact that the Canadian Expeditionary Force was discharged on the 31st December, 1920, notwithstanding the fact that the insurance principle in this act extends to August 31st, 1921, the amendment will make certain to any man at any time who has served in the war, whether he went overseas or not, or whether he got to a theatre of actual war or not, the absolute right to say that the illness from which he is now suffering is due to military service or was incurred while he was on service.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Only if he can prove a reasonable case.


Herbert Meredith Marler: That is not what the amendment says. If my hon. friend will allow me to read it I will discuss it with him later. I am only too glad to discuss the matter with him. The amendment continues:
-which could reasonably be attributed to war service, such member shall be deemed to be suffering from a disease attributable to, or aggravated by navtall, military or air force service, as the case may be, unless or until it is shown that the tuberculosis or neurasthenia or cancer or other disease or incapacity was neither attributable to, nor aggravated by, such service; and for the purpose of this provision, acceptance for such service shall be conclusive that at the time of joining such service the officer or man was not suffer ng from any such disease or incapacity.
Let hon. members fully understand, if they want to pass the amendment, that they will have to take the consequences of so doing. The last sentence of the amendment means that every man brought into the Canadian Expeditionary Force is eligible for a pension whether he got out of Canada or not, whether he reached England or not, or whether he reached any theatre of actual war or not. Such a man is eligible under this amendment, no matter at what time in his life he may contract the diseases mentioned therein, "or any other disease". An hon. gentleman mentions, and properly so, that a man might have been only a few weeks in the army, half an hour, perhaps, when he was discharged, and he would naturally be subject to this amendment. Let us take some cases that have actually happened, so that we shall not be talking mere theories. There were many men who enlisted in the army and who were very anxious to go overseas to serve their country. Thousands upon thousands of them did so and they deserve enormous credit. The fact is that they besought physicians who examined them to pass them for service and I know of

Pension Act
many such cases in Montreal, which is no exception. There were such cases all over the Dominion, and some of my military friends in the House will probably confirm that statement. These men were taken on and to all intents and purposes they were perfectly well.	As soon as they left a
high altitude, as soon as they got to sea and reached England they contracted various ailments of one kind or another, which were not very serious. They were pensionable. There were other men who were discharged and sent back to Canada, never having served in any theatre of actual war: they were never near a theatre of war, and many of them never got overseas. But the amendment will cover men of that description. Now, I claim, in all sincerity, that the amendment is inadvisable, and I have no desire whatever to deprive exservice men of their rights. On the contrary, I think they should be given everything that the country can give them. I will stand by that, as I have done before. But I do claim that under the act as now drafted, under section 11 and under the other clauses providing for courts of review and a federal board of appeal, the ex-service men are given every possible opportunity to prove their cases. Some hon. members may say-I do not say it myself-that at the present time these men perhaps are not getting what they should get. I think myself that as a matter of fact the Board of Pension Commissioners, except in isolated cases, do pension men to the best of their ability. But even if the men do not always get a fair hearing, you have boards of appeal. The act is so drawn that every man has an opportunity to show any reasonable connection between the disability from Which he is suffering and the fact of his having enlisted. Is not that fair enough? Or are we going to take an amendment of this description, not knowing what it will entail?


Mr. MEWBURN:: Mr. Chairman, a year ago when the minister's estimates were up I recommended that a commission should be appointed to inquire into the hundreds of vexatious cases that had arisen in the last few years in regard to the treatment of our returned men by the pension commissioners. My suggestion perhaps went a little further than what the minister proposes to-night, but I congratulate him on having appointed a royal commission, I congratulate the commission on the very able report they have submitted to the minister, and I am very glad indeed that he has introduced this bill. I have read it over carefully, and while there are other sections in the act in which many of
us could suggest changes, I believe, taking it on the whole, that this bill is most commendable and meets a long-felt need. I am sure all of us could detail many cases that have come to our personal knowledge in which we consider that grave injustice has been dealt out to our returned men. I might instance one case which is probably typical of dozens. The man went overseas, served his country, developed pneumonia, was in hospital, came out before he should-which was probably his own fault-insisted on going back to service, and remained at the front to the end of the war. During the demobilization, as we all know, the feeling on the part of every officer, non-commissioned officer and man in the Canadian Expeditionary Force was to get out of the army and back to civil life as quickly as possible, and to accomplish this they exercised their ingenuity to the fullest extent to secure their discharge papers and left the service as class A men, whereas if they had been medically examined they would not have been so classified. The particular man whose case I am dealing with got back to his job without delay. A year later he developed tubercular trouble and is now in the Hamilton sanitarium. His medical history sheet discloses that he had pneumonia overseas and that he passed out of the army Class A; but the doctor at the sanitarium, an expert on tuberculosis, says that the man's trouble was caused through service at the front. That man has not been paid one cent by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment since he has been in hospital.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is a clear case for appeal.


Mr. MEM  BURN@: It is Captain Nicholson's case. I wrote three letters myself, but his case was turned down. As I understand it now, that man's case can be appealed and reviewed' and if he can substantiate by expert medical evidence that his tubercular trouble is attributable to service he will be entitled to compensation.
The only suggestion I would make is in regard to section 11, subsection (a). I think probably the word "reasonably" might go ahead of the word "attributable," so as to make the line read, "was reasonably attributable to or was incurred during such military service."
Probably I am the one principally responsible^ for the record office for the Department of National Defence. I took a great deal of trouble in connection with its establishment. I remember very distinctly bringing a recommendation before Council in the early stages of the war, for as minister I felt that nothing
Pension Act

should be omitted by the government, or the Militia department, to ensure a proper record being preserved of the service of every officer, non-commissioned officer and man belonging to the Canadian Expeditionary Force. I took this course advisedly, having some knowledge of the fictitious claims made against the American government after the Civil War. I felt it was incumbent upon the government or the minister in charge that the country should be protected against unreasonable claims, and although I am not taking any credit for it; the credit belongs to the departmental officials -I believe that our records are the most perfect of any preserved by the belligerent countries. Those records are so complete that to-day our doctors scrutinize them when tubercular and other troubles develop after returned men have gone back to civil life, although as a matter of fact I believe the trouble is reasonably attributable to service. I congratulate the minister and shall be glad to support his bill.


Mr. NEILL:: I rise to ask a question, not of you, Mr. Chairman, nor of the minister, but of the members of this committee. Before doing so I must give the setting. For nearly a whole year we have had a commission of very able men dealing with the subject now under discussion, and they have submitted an elaborate and evidently carefully thought-out report-a report which singularly enough appears to have been received with satisfaction by everybody concerned, and more particularly by the returned men. We have the further fact of the hon. minister in charge of this bill coming before this House making this statement-and I have heard it at least half a dozen times-that it was his intention to bring down legislation carrying out the full intent of the report of this royal commission. He now tells us that he is doing so, that he has studied the act very carefully-and he has shown us to-night that he has a grasp of the subject which I am sure no one else possesses-and that he has had the very ablest draftsmen frame these amendments, and he tells us further that he has submitted these amendments to the people who after all are most vitally concerned-the soldiers themselves-and to the Ralston commission, all of whom have signified their approval.
The question I now ask the committee is this: Can we, sitting here to-night, expect to obtain such a grasp of the subject as would enable us to amend or improve the work of the royal commission, of the minister and of the draftsman? I think if we attempt to do anything of the kind we shall only add con-
[Mr. Mewbum.l
fusion, and that we had better accept the amendments in the form in which they have been submitted to us and see how they work out for a year. If this were the work of the Pension commission I would say: Let us scrutinize it down to the last syllable and the last comma, because I do not think we are satisfied with their interpretation of the act. But under the circumstances outlined I think we might do well to pass these amendments of the minister more or less in their entirety.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the committee to a suggestion along the same lines as that indicated by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). All members have received, I have no doubt, and certainly the members from Toronto, the statement issued the day before yesterday by the Great War Veterans' Association, and I would ask that it be made a part of the record of this debate, so that we can say that not only has the royal commission reported what they think is in the interest of the men, but that the men themselves, the members of the Great War Veterans' Association, endorse the report This is the communication, Mr. Chairman: Ottawa, June 13, 1923.
Re Pensions Appeal Procedure
Sir,-I am instructed by the Legislative Committee of the Dominion Veterans' Alliance to solicit your support of legislation designed to establish the form of pensions appeal procedure recommended by the Royal Commission on Pensions and Re-establishment. The principal features of the procedure so recommended are set forth in Sections 9-13 of the Bill proposing certain amendments to the Pension Act which is now before the House of Commons.
I may explain that in each province, evidence and suggestions, relative to this subject, were placed before the royal commission by a committee representative of all groups of ex-service men. Great care was exercised by these committees in weighing all ideas discussed and in advancing those most practicable under conditions prevailing in respective provinces. It is believed that the recommendation of the royal commission on this matter embodies the principles generally regarded by ex-service men as fundamental in any provision for appeal. It is also believed that the form of appeal procedure recommended will achieve the maximum of satisfaction with a minimum of expense.
Experience gained in dealing with the grievances of individual ex-service men before and during the inquiry of the royal commission has led this organization to the conclusion that thousands desire to appeal from decisions of the Pensions Board. This experience has also resulted in the conviction that the procedure outlined by the royal commission offers advantages vastly superior to any plan yet proposed. This procedure ensures justice with economy and invites confidence. It may not be amiss, therefore, at this juncture to point out some of these advantages.
The procedure recommended enables a discussion preliminary to appeal which will tend to eliminate appeals without legal ground or, of a frivolous character and those caused by obvious errors. In this way, without undue restraint upon the appellant, the work and expense of the appeal administration may be materially lightened.

Pension Act
The constitution of the appeal boards as recommended by the royal commission ensures a common-sense treatment of the appeal, free from professional bias and undue emphasis upon technicalities. Members with legal and medical experience can most readily deal with legal or medical aspects of the claim, and the presence of a member with industrial experience will provide a viewpoint most essential in estimating the degree of incapacity as gauged by the requirements of the labour market. It is also most essential that members of every board should have knowledge of conditions which prevailed on active service.
To avoid dissatisfaction, it is desirable that the large number of appeals awaiting consideration at the outset, should be reviewed with all possible speed. The hearing of each appeal will necessitate a careful examination of the appellant's service record a proceeding which, with the present system of records, requires a great deal of time, even by those with experience. The procedure recommended will provide a personnel available and competent to engage in a review of all appeals lodged, without undue delay and continuously while necessary.
The proposed district review boards are easily accessible to the prospective appellants either from the standpoint of location or time. If at the outset this work were entrusted to officials unable to engage therein without interruption, many men in certain occupations would find it difficult to appear during the appeal proceedings. Furthermore, it is presumed that the district review boards will arrange hearings in various centres in the district as may be convenient.
While the procedure recommended is designed to adequately cope with the initial deluge of appeals, nevertheless, it offers the most certain assurance of ultimate economy in administration. The administrative machinery may be telescoped as the volume of appeals may diminish. Provision is made for a gradual centralization based upon the federal appeal board which would not be possible under any other scheme proposed.
One of the foremost advantages of the proposed legislation is that uniformity with regard to decisions and procedure in the various districts is definitely safeguarded. The required reference to the Pensions Board and possibly at a later stage the Federal Appeal Board, provides a balancing and harmonizing influence. There is little danger, as the work progresses, of any variation of decision at different points upon appeals based upon similar evidence. Under any lack of the other schemes of district appeal procedure proposed lack of uniformity would be inevitable. Another advantageous feature of the appeal legislation in view is that federal supervision may be exercised over all decisions as regards expenditure of federal funds.
I trust that these views \nay receive your favourable consideration and support.
Yours faithfully,
C. G. MacNeil,
Secretary, Dominion Veterans' Alliance.
Here we have the Dominion Veterans' Alliance endorsing this scheme. I agree with the ex-Minister of Militia (Mr. Mewburn) that we ought to be very careful about disturbing this very well thought-out plan as so endorsed.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Mr. Chairman, as a past member of the Pension committee of this House for three years I wish to corroborate some of the statements made by the minister to-night. I desire first, however, to congratulate him on the bill which he has 246
introduced. So far as it is possible to remedy by legislation the disabilities under which the returned man has been suffering, I think his bill will achieve that end. However, I want to go just a little further than any hon. members have gone whom I have heard speak to-night. I did not have the advantage of being in the House when this matter was discussed on Monday evening. I am speaking now of the interpretation of the act. I think it will be practically impossible to pass a pension act that will be so administered by the present Pension board as to get justice for the returned man. Hon. members may not all agree with me in that, but I feel sure that a good many of them will. I want to cite a special case to prove my contention, a case which in my opinion is fully covered by the act, but in connection with which justice has not been done, and I doubt if it ever will be done while the present chairman of the Pension board holds that office. He has always taken the attitude that once he makes a decision he must not reverse it for fear he will be admitting he had done wrong.


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, I object to that.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I take exception to my hon. friend's attitude in that respect.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have the floor.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I simply want to register my objection.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I want to cite this case so that the facts may be understood. This man enlisted within ten days after war broke out, went to France, and came back discharged as no longer fit for service. He was one of the men referred to by some hon. members here to-night as those who were anxious to get back to civil life. He was over military age when he enlisted; he served two years and then broke down under the strain. He had three sons of military age who enlisted and were in training while he was overseas; they went to England on the same vessel that brought the father home. He was therefore very anxious to get back to his family-a wife and three small children. As I say, he was discharged as no longer fit for military service, not even as A-l. He tried to carry on in civil life, but he broke down within a month and went under the doctor's care. He made the mistake of not going to a military hospital and undergoing examination by military doctors. He employed a civilian doctor, and by the way, the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment paid that doctor's bill afterwards-I presented it-to the extent of $100. After carrying on



Pension Act
for upwards of two years under conditions such as these, trying to work, breaking down and going under the doctor's care-not entering a military hospital but undergoing treatment by his own practitioner-his condition at last compelled him to go to a military hospital. He was sent to a sanitarium in St.
John, New Brunswick, which is
10 p.m. under the direction of a very competent man, Dr. Farris by name. After being under Dr. Farris' care for a matter of three months he was granted full disability pension for tuberculosis; I hold in my hand a copy of the communication notifying the man that he had been granted that pension. But after that pension had been paid for two months it was discontinued. The case had been reviewed by a medical man here in Ottawa who had never been within five hundred miles of the pensioner, who had two months before been granted a full disability pension. His pension was cut down to $5.30 a month, which was supposed to be in respect to a gunshot wound in his knee-and that pension was for himself and his wife and three children. I at once got in touch with Dr. Farris, whom I know very well, and whose ability and honesty have never been questioned. I asked him what he knew of this man's case. I knew the man personally. I knew he was a hardy robust man before he enlisted; that he had returned from the front broken in health and that he has since been unable to do a day's work, or, if he has done it, should not have done it. I would like to read the following letter from Dr. Farris dated April 6, 1920:
Dear Sir,-Driver James B. Tompkins, No. 5216, 1st Field Co., C.E. C.E.F., was a patient in this institution for several months. I believe he had pulmonary tuberculosis. He went out of here in good condition with the disease quiescent. I examined him again in the fall of 1919 and thought he was not so well and recommended his return to this institution. I was surprised to learn that h.is pension had been cut off and the Pension board did not believe he had tuberculosis. He had had pleurisy and bronchitis before d scharge and he had a hemorrhage about a year after his discharge. On March 10th, 1920 he was admitted here again, as his wife said he was in a very bad condition. I was unable however to find any definite tuberculosis th:s time. His lungs had cleared up and his general condition was fair. I found his heart weak and I believe he has arteriosclerosis. I feel confident that this man had tuberculosis at the time of h:s discharge, that he made splendid improvement while in here, and that he has taken pretty good care of himself since, but-
This is what I want hon. members to notice particularly:
-that he is unable to do but a small amount of work, apparently due to arteriosclerosis and also to tuberculosis. He certainly should get more than $5.30 per month for his pension.
IMr. Caldwell.]
I also communicated with the doctor who attended him in his home after his discharge, and this is the letter I received from him.
Woodstock, N.B., December 28, 1920.
May say for your information that I attended this man first on July 10, 1916. I believe he was discharged from the army in June, 1916. The man had at that time a slight hemorrhage from the lungs I have attended this man ever since, and there is no doubt that this trouble was induced by active service. He was a strong, robust man before going to the front, and since that time his health is such that he is unable to earn a livelihood. He has spent several months in a sanitarium, but the trouble ds still present. This man without doubt should have been receiving a pension since this trouble started.
I have repeatedly taken this matter up with the Pension board, submitting these facts to them for their information. They did not have Dr. Farris' letter or either of Dr. Grant's letters at the time they discontinued the pension, and I was' fully convinced that upon receiving this information they would reverse their decision and reinstate the pension. But they persisted until last year in refusing anything more than the pension for gunshot wound that I have mentioned. Here is a letter from Dr. Grant dated March 3, 1922- and I may say this letter was unsolicited; Dr. Grant wrote me knowing that I was' interested in the case. He says:
Woodstock, N.B., March 3, 1922.
Mr. J. B. Tompkins is ill again and has had another hemorrhage from the lungs, his condition is certainly unsatisfactory so far as any improvement is concerned.
Dr. Grant at that time took the matter up with the Camp Hill hospital at Halifax with a view of having this man admitted for treatment, because he was in very poor financial circumstances and was unable to pay a doctor. The Pension board was unwilling to admit that he had a claim for pension. This was the reply Dr. Grant got from the Camp Hill Hospital in Halifax, dated March 16, 1922;
Dr. N. P. Grant,
Woodstock, N.B.
Your communication of the 10th inst. relative to the marginally noted man has been passed to this office.
You are advised, please, that B.P.C. Ottawa, have definitely ruled that this man's pulmonary condition is not to be regarded as due to service. No steps can therefore be taken to have him admitted to any S.C.R. institution.
They refused to admit him to a sanitarium even for treatment, although he and his- three sons had given splendid service. The three sons went over in 1916 and served during all the remainder of the war.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He was ultimately admitted, was he not?

Pension Act


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes. I will come to
that later. Dr. Grant forwarded a copy of this letter to me and I at once took the matter up with the D.S.C.R. here. After my insisting very strongly that action be taken they did admit him to a sanitarium for treatment, and upon my taking the matter up quite strenuously with the Pension board they granted him an increase in pension. Here is the letter from the Pension board dated July 28, 1922.


The CHAIRMAN:: I am afraid the hon.
gentleman is going beyond relevancy to the matter under consideration when he reads extensively from these let' ers.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I was not present when the principle of the bill was before the House the other night. However, I should like to be permitted to refer to these communications.


George Newcombe Gordon: I question whether
that record can be read. A good deal of what has already been read has been irrelevant.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I will bow to your
ruling, but I would like to refer to it if I may not read it. On July 28, a communication was received from the Pension board saying that they had granted him a pension of $21 a month for himself, his wife, and three children. I think it is a 15 per cent disability that gives a pension of $21 a month, and they made this retroactive for the whole period from his discharge, after, for three years, refusing to give him anything but $5.30 a month and stating that his condition was not due to service. Then in July, 1922, they yielded a little and they admit that his condition is possibly due to service and they grant him a pension that I consider an insult to a man who has given the service that he has and who is not able to work as he is not. But due to the fact that he must live, he has gone out and worked repeatedly for a short time. Each time he breaks down and comes back on the doctor's hands. His wife, who is not a trained nurse at all, leaves the children with him when he is not able to work and she goes out and endeavours to get nursing in order to try and keep the wolf from the door. Their home is mortgaged, their taxes are not paid, they are in a very critical financial condition. The three sons who have returned have married and have had as hard a time as most returned men to reestablish themselves, and should not have to support the father and mother and the smaller children. However they have had to contribute from their very meagre earnings, after
246i
maintaining themselves, to the upkeep of the family. One of the sons bought a farm from the Soldier Settlement board, made his 10 per cent payment down, but owing to adverse conditions has lost that. So that this family that have given such great war services do not feel, nor do their friends feel, that they have at all had justice at the hands of the Pension board.


An hon. MEMBER:: What pension does the man get now?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: He is receiving a pension of $21 a month for himself, his wife and three small children Every doctor that examines him tells him that he should not work but he finds that he must do so. When he works a little he breaks down and comes back again on the doctor's hands. When he gets on his feet he endeavours to work again, but without success. These facts have repeatedly been brought to the attention of the Pension board. The letters I have quoted from have been referred to the board. I have taken the case up repeatedly with them. Their last stunt was to call in a tubercular expert to go over this man's file of papers. That was on May 29th, 1923. I have a letter from the board stating that the medical expert, after reviewing the man's file-here in Ottawa whereas the man lives in Woodstock, N.B.-had decided he was not entitled to a pension.
Now to substantiate the statement which has already been made by some members, and which may still be repeated by others, I may state that I think the present Pension board have made their position untenable by the attitude they have taken towards the Pension Act and towards pensioners. For instance in the case of the amendments of 1920, and 1921, questions were asked by various members of the parliamentary pension committee who wished to assure themselves that those amendments would not affect the men of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. Had the members of that committee-I think I can speak for myself anyway and I believe the same remark applies to other members of the committee-believed that those amendments would have been applied to the men who served in France, or in any other theatre of war, they would not have been passed. But the Pension board, or their representatives, said those amendments did not apply to the Canadian Expeditionary Force, but simnly to the men in the permanent force, and applied to conditions after the war was over. It was stated without hesitation that the amendments would not apply to any man who had served in the overseas forces. Ac-
Pension Act

cordingly the amendments were allowed to go through. For that I think we are all to blame. I think a separate clause should have been framed to deal with the permanent force leaving section 11 as it was. However, I am pleased that the minister has brought down section 11 in its amended form.
I now wish to quote from the report of the Ralston commission to substantiate the claim that the Pension board have not given the pensioner the benefit of the doubt in a great many cases. On page 114 the report of the commission reads as follows:
Sufficient <haa been shown, in the evidence before the commission, to quite justify the concflusion that the statement that the applicant is given the benefit of any reasonable doubt cannot be taken as expressing by any means an invariable principle of pensions administration. Numerous cases were presented in which, in the opinion of the commission, there was clearly a reasonable doubt established in favour of the applicant, but pension was refused; and in many of these the appflicant showed not only a reasonable doubt but a preponderance of evidence in his favour.
This is the finding of the royal commission after having had submitted to them, I think I am safe in saying, hundreds of cases in which the pensioner was not given the benefit of reasonable doubt. I do not wish to weary the House by quoting copiously from the report but in many places it is stated that statements derogatory to the pensioner were taken at their face value while facts established in his favour were not considered. That is to say, that facts operating adversely, against the pensioner were given very great prominence in the matter of deciding on pensions. I can personally vouch that I have found this to be the case. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to weary the House but I must say I feel very strongly on this matter. As a member of the Pension committee of this House for three years I have had as good an opportunity to know the attitude of the Board of Pension Commissioners towards the pensioners and towards any change in the Pension Act that would be for the benefit of the pensioners as any hon. member in this House.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I rise to speak only
because I wish to emphasize and make a little more clear, if I can, the necessity, as I believe it, of giving in a case of doubt, the decision in favour of an applicant for pension. I think the minister did not quite understand the purport of the amendment when it was proposed. No one desires to lay violent hands on this section 3-a long section with many subsections and, if I may be permitted to say it, well drafted-but I want to put this case to the minister: Suppose
fMr. Caldwell.]
there is an applicant who is suffering from a disease which if attributable to or incurred during military service would entitle him to a pension. Suppose we have one suffering from such a disease who goes before the Board of Pension Commissioners. There are two doctors who say, "Your disease is attributable to the war or to your military service." There are two doctors on the other side who say flatly "Your disease is not attributable to your military service." In other words, suppose, as very often happens, it is a case of fifty-fifty, that there is no preponderance of testimony in favour of the plaintiff, that the verdict can only be the Scotch verdict, "not proven." Now, what is the position of the Pension commissioners? I do not know whether they are sworn to administer their duties faithfully or whether they take an oath of office. No doubt they do do that whether they take such an oath or not. They are in this position then, "We cannot award a pension. The case is evenly balanced. We cannot say this is attributable to the war, nor can we say it is attributable to military service. Therefore it is impossible for us, under this admirably drawn act, to award a pension." What I desire is that when the case is on an even balance the onus of proof shall favour the applicant, and that the even balance shall be immediately disturbed by saying that the applicant is entitled to his pension. The British House of Commons has done that; the government introduced an act. I believe it was in 1922 or 1923. We are told we have the best Pension Act of any country that went through the war but we do not have it in this respect. We may have been liberal with those entitled to pensions, but that is not the only consideration. I would like the minister to tell this House if it is possible under this admirably drawn act, for the Board of Pension Commissioners, discharging their duties faithfully according to the oath of office, if they take it, where the evidence is evenly balanced, to decide in favour of the applicant and grant a pension. I submit it is not.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Of course the Pension
board may decide in favour of any applicant, if there is a difference of opinion between two medical boards. There is nothing at all in the act that would preclude a decision in favour of an applicant, if two medical men pronounce against the attributability and two pronounce in favour of it.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. The members of the Board of Pension Commissioners must discharge their duties honestly. Instead of tak-

Pension Act
ing two doctors for and two doctors against,
I	will take one doctor for and one against. The applicant comes before the board and makes his claim under section 3, subsection
II	(a), and one surgeon says "Your disease is not attributable to nor was it incurred during military service." The other surgeon, equally credible, comes forward and says "Your disease is attributable to or was incurred during military service." What is the board to do? The board may say that either of these two distinguished surgeons is entitled to credibility, but that "We cannot believe A any more than we can believe B; it is an even balance, the onus of proof is upon the applicant, and therefore we have to deny the pension". Of course, as the minister says, there is nothing to prevent the board from granting a pension, but if the board is discharging its obligations as men sitting in judgment, it is impossible under the law to give a pension to the applicant.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I beg to differ with my
hon. friend. There is nothing whatever in the act that precludes the board from awarding a pension in the case he has cited. My hon. friend is speaking of attributability, but we go further than that in this act. We say that if it is attributable to service the man may be pensioned and shall be pensioned-not "may" but "shall"-also if the disease was incurred during service. It is absolutely impossible to go further, and if you attempt to go further you confuse matters entirely. I admit that very often one medical opinion is set against another medical opinion. Medicine is not a science of geometry nor of mathematics, and doctors disagree. How can we expect that they will not disagree, when lawyers disagree on a given statute? When the Pension board refuses a pension in a case such as my hon. friend mentioned, the remedy would be to appeal. I do not know whether my hon. friend is a lawyer by profession or not.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Then, as a lawyer he
knows that contradictory evidence is submitted in the court in almost every case. It is a matter for the judge to estimate the evidence of one party as against the evidence of the other party. In numberless cases the evidence is contradictory, and if the litigant loses his case before one court it is open to him to appeal to a higher court; if he is not satisfied with the second court, he may go to a third court, or he may go as far as the Privy Council.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Although it appears to
me that I have laboured hard I have not made myself plain to the minister.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, the hon. member has made himself very clear.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The minister must admit there are many cases where the evidence is evenly balanced. The applicant has just as much in his favour as the defendant has in his favour; in other words, there are cases where there is no preponderance of evidence, you are in a dilemma as to where the right may be, and you would seek to have some additional evidence in order to decide the case. But it is not forthcoming. In that case the board has no option and no alternative but to refuse the pension.


Henri Sévérin Béland: On what does the hon.
member base that assertion? Will he quote me one single line in the act that precludes the awarding the pension?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I will read the section.
Such a provision does exist in the English Act. I am sorry now to take up the time of the House, but I must do it. The section of the act reads:
In respect of military service rendered during the war-
(a) Pensions shall be awarded to or in respect of members of the forces who have suffered disability resulting from injury or disease-
Let me skip a few words here.
When the disability resulting from injury or disease or the aggravation thereof in respect of which the application for pension is made or the injury or disease or the aggravation thereof resulting in the death in respect of which the application for pension is made-
Then what?
-was attributable to or was incurred during such military service.
Suppose a man qualifies under the first-part of the section I have read, and come? as an applicant for a pension, what must he show? He must show that this disability,, disease or the aggravation thereof was attributable to or was incurred during such military service. Suppose he produces evidence, as I have said before, and that ranks fifty in authority, and there is evidence against that which amounts to fifty; there is an even balance, and that man, under the act of the hon. minister, must be denied his pension, if the Pension board does its duty.


Henri Sévérin Béland: All I can say is that I beg to disagree with my hon. friend. I ask him to quote one single sentence in this act that would preclude the awarding of a pension in such a case under this act. He cannot show one single sentence. Of course, there is no
Pension Act

such preclusion in the act, and my hon. friend, who is a lawyer, knows it. It is a question I understand of appreciation of medical evidence as presented. It is not a quest'on of one doctor as against another. I would not set my medical opinion against the opinion of a professor of pathology in McGill University or Queen's University, though it might be one medical opinion as against
not her medical opinion. It is for a competent board to judge the situation, to appreciate the evidence as presented, and to award or refuse a pension according to their judgment and their conscience. There is in the act nothing that precludes them from awarding a pension, even if the evidence is not adduced.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Does the applicant have to prove that his disease was attributable to his military service?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


Mr. FIELDING:: Or incurred during military service?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Or incurred during military service?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is different.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I was stating just one case. It is very plain that if you can prove that your disease was attributable to military service, you get a pension. I will put the matter in this way. Does the minister admit that an applicant must prove that his disease was attributable to or was incurred during such military service?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not say that he has to, and there is in the act nothing that says that.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: What does the language mean?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The language means that he may make application for a pension for a disability which is attributable to or incurred during service.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: He must show that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He may and, no doubt, he does show all possible evidence that is in his possession. It is for the Pension board then -and they do this in every case-to resort to securing medical opinion from their advisers in this regard, from the medical sheet, from whatever is produced by the man, and to base their judgment thereupon.


Robert James Manion: I think possibly I may
offer just one suggestion that may help to clear up the point. Probably the hon. member

for Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) is correct as to the legal letter of the law, but at the same time it would be an absolute impossibility in many cases for men applying for pensions to prove that their disease or disability was due to or was incurred during service. Take the case, for example, of a man who became ill a year after his discharge. He was discharged as fit. His case is laid before the medical board who finally say: "Well, the evidence looks as if this might have occurred at that time." Unless there is some medical record, it would be impossible for that man to prove in a legal sense, that his case was due to or was incurred, during service.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: He has to do that now.


Robert James Manion: I do not think so. The argument I was making the other day was that you cannot live up to the letter of the law, as the Pension board has been inclined in the past to do.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is my impression also.


Robert James Manion: I hope this amended act will put an end to this living up to the letter of the law.


Mr. LUCAS:: The last few lines of paragraph (b) of clause 3 read:
Provided that no pension shall be paid for a disability or disabling condition which at such time was wilfully concealed, was obvious, was not of a nature to cause rejection from service, or was a congenital defect.
As regards a man who had a congenital eye condition, if it was proven that his condition was aggravated by service, would he be denied a pension?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No. He would not be pensioned for the pre-existing disability, but he w'ould be pensioned for the aggravation in this case. If that was not a congenital defect, or if it was not wilfully concealed, or if it was not obvious, then he would receive a pension, not only for the aggravation, but for the preexisting disability if he reached an actual theatre of war. That is the purpose of paragraph (b).


Murray MacLaren: In reference to this discussion about proving a case, I would suggest that there is practically no such thing as a man proving his case. A man may prove his case, in the event of an application on account of some obvious disability, by the evidence of his comrades who saw it occur. But that happens only in a certain number of cases. As regards many diseases, such as medical diseases, these things are not proved. I do not suppose the minister would suggest for a moment that these cases are subject to proof.

Pension Act
What then is the question? It is a matter of a man submitting his case to the Pension board. If a man submits a reasonable amount of evidence, then his case is established; but one does not mention that in the same breath as proof. The case is not proved to a mathematical demonstration, but it is accepted on the establishment of a reasonable case. I think we are a little liable to confuse these terms in that sense.
As far as I can gather from reading the amendment, it conflicts with the latter portion of paragraph (b). That may not be the case, but I consider this amendment is of such a length that it should be printed and circulated amongst the members. Personally I do not feel able to discuss it until I have had a fair opportunity of reading it over very carefully. Many very serious difficulties have arisen in connection with pensions over the fact of obscurity and difficulty in interpretation. I fear we have expected too much of the Pension board in that respect, because they have had great difficulty from the act just as have returned men and others who are interested. We should be most careful to see that we make this act now as amended as perfect as possible. Especially we should gain from the experience we have had in the last few years of difficulties that have arisen through imperfectly and obscurely drafted acts. This amendment is too lengthy to be read over in this way unless we have an opportunity of reading it carefully as we have had of reading the bill. I, therefore, would suggest that if the amendment is to be proceeded with, it be allowed to stand for this evening until printed copies can be distributed amongst the members.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The four last lines of paragraph (b) to which my hon. friend (Mr. Mac-Laren) has referred are a repetition of the act of 1919 and have remained in the act ever since. They are not new.


Murray MacLaren: The minister misunderstood me. I am referring to the amendment proposed to the bill.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The amendment now before the committee?	[DOT]


Murray MacLaren: My remarks are not on the amendment, but on the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. CLARK:: As I understand the matter, the insurance principle was contained in the 1919 act. Is that correct?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We called it so.


John Arthur Clark: Then in the 1920 amendment, that was wiped out?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Is it not a fact that since the act was amended in 1920, pensions have actually been awarded to ex-members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force on the insurance principle?


Henri Sévérin Béland: If that is a question, I shall answer it.


John Arthur Clark: I was going to give, perhaps, a concrete illustration of that. For instance, if a man who had suffered during service from a light form of tuberculosis, let us say, had been cured and had gone back to service, and subsequently to his discharge, say in 1921, he again developed tuberculosis and applied for a pension, is it not a fact that a pension would be granted in such a case where the medical history of the man showed that he had suffered from the trouble on service.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think so.


John Arthur Clark: In other words, although the act was amended in 1920, the insurance principle has been carried out during subsequent years?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I pointed out a minute ago that the due to service principle did not appear to have been applied until 1921. My hon. friend perhaps has not in mind that the declaration of peace took place only on the 31st of August, 1921, although the act had been amended more than a year previously.


John Arthur Clark: I was not thinking of that, but of cases that arise to-day, cases of tuberculosis, or any other disease, the origin of which can be found in a man's medical history sheet. What I am suggesting is that a pension will be granted even to-day as the law now stands. Is not that correct?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think it happens, yes.


John Arthur Clark: Well, as I understand the matter, these amendments which are now before the committee are simply for the purpose of crystallizing the practice which is now in existence.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


John Arthur Clark: I cannot get any meaning from the minister's answer, then.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Though in some cases pensions might have been awarded on the insurance principle, in at least 500 cases, I am informed by the Pension board, pension has been refused on that very account, because
Pension Act

under the act as it stands to-day, the disability in respect of which the application is made may not be attributable to service, even though it might have been incurred on service.


John Arthur Clark: I agree with the amendment to that extent, in so far as it corrects that feature. I want to emphasize what the member for East. Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) said. I agree with his interpretation of this amended bill. True, we may be looking at it from a legal standpoint; we must take that into consideration. But suppose you have a case in which there are say, two doctors, on either side. The case comes before the Pension board and we find that after a perusal of the opinion given by the doctors in the first instance, the two medical men on the Pension board absolutely agree with two of them against the man, so that there is an adverse decision. It is very dangerous for the man's case if there is equal evidence on both sides, and even if the two doctors on the Pension board disagree, the situation is serious. So long as it is necessary for the man to show that his disability is attributable to service or was incurred on service there is going to be dissatisfaction, and there are going to be difficulties. It is my desire to see this dissatisfaction obviated and these difficulties overcome as far as possible this present year. I believe that this, section will be of service to some extent, but you cannot get away from the fact that evidence must be produced that the disability is attributable to service. After a period of two or three years there will be considerable difficulty in satisfactorily proving this, and there must be differences of opinion where there are medical men. Furthermore, I can quite understand that applicants for pensions will be firmly convinced that their disabilities are attributable to service, or were incurred on service, and these men will be able to obtain independent medical opinion supporting their view, though you may find medical opinion produced by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment unanimously opposed to it. There will always be differences of opinion among medical men, and that is going to give rise to difficulties and dissatisfaction. The minister says that this is where the appeal board comes in. That may help to some extent, but even the appeal board will be faced with the problems presented by the member for East Toronto, and I am not satisfied that this section is going to meet a very large number of cases which are bound to be appealed as soon as the appeal boards are constituted if the sub-
sequent sections are adopted. In my experience, these sections simply crystallize what has been the practice of the Pension board. I have had no particular difficulty in cases which I have presented to them where I could show that disability was attributable to service. Where I could do that I have had no particular difficulty in having the insurance principle applied. Yet I quite understand that there have been cases all over Canada, some 500 in number, which have arisen where that principle has not been applied. In that regard I agree with the amendment, because that principle, I think, should be applied. I submit, however, that we are not getting over the whole dissatisfaction, which is bound to result when the bulk of these appeals come before the board.


Charles Gavan Power: Whilst I agree to a large extent with my hon. friend from Toronto and the hon. gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Clark) that something should be done to take the onus of proof as to the attribu-tability of the disease off the applicant, I think the amendment offered by the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) opens the door altogether too wide. Let me give an extreme hypothetical case. A man, let us suppose, was called to the colours and drafted in 1918. He reported to the barracks and was given harvest furlough. He was probably ten minutes at the barracks when he was given furlough, and he went home to his farm. Before he reported back again the armistice was declared. Thirty or forty years afterwards he develops tuberculosis. Under the amendment, the fact that he reported to the barracks, was medically examined and passed as fit, is conclusive evidence that he must have contracted tuberculosis on service and he would be entitled to a pension. I think hon. members of the committee will agree that that is opening the door a little too wide and would certainly lead to a considerable abuse. As I have already stated,
I agree with the other legal lights that at present the onus of proof is on the applicant, and something should be done to open the door a little wider in this respect, but I think we are going a little too far under the amendment offered by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner).


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that as we have been discussing this amendment for a little over two hours, and as probably all opinions in regard to it have been elicited, we might as well decide one way or the other and get on with this bill.

Pension Act


Herbert Meredith Marler: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) deals with the definition of the word "attributability", which I think he desires to incorporate in the act. The amendment now before the committee goes a great deal further. I do not think it is advisable to define the word "attributability", I think any definition will only tend to narrow its meaning. But if it is desired to define "attributability" in such a way that the onus will not be entirely on the soldier, let us make an amendment along that line.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: A year ago, Mr. Chairman, I might not have supported this amendment, but to-day, after my experience in the interval, I am inclined to support it. The onus of proof at the present is too difficult for the applicant to sustain. Let me remind the minister of one case which illustrates this very strongly and will convince him that something must be done to alleviate the applicant's burden. I brought to the notice of the department the case of a man who after having a pension for four years finds himself suddenly deprived of it because the Pension board discover they made a mistake. What mistake did they make? Referring to their records, they find it reported that there is a scar on the left side of this man's neck which was there before the war. The man denies this and states that after he was discharged he went over to Glasgow and there had a slight operation performed, of which this scar is the mark. The board refuses to accept his statement or to take any steps to prove or disprove it. As a result the man has to go to the trouble of sending over to Glasgow to get some person there, who is not interested in his case, to go through the hospital records. What are the facts? This man had a slight operation performed in Scotland in 1910-he worked from 1910 to 1914 in the shipyards there-then became a fireman on a convoy, worked right up to 1914 in perfect health-served a year or more on the convoy-jumped his job at Montreal- went to Belleville and enlisted-and a month later showed signs of tuberculosis. That is a very unfortunate case, but it is not the only one I have brought to the department's notice. I find it is very difficult for the applicant to bear all the burden of proof, and yet there is nothing in these amendments to relieve him of that burden in any way.
Last year I supported the amendment that time should not count with a tubercular case. The man perhaps had been under a gas attack with no immediate bad effects. I think tubercular cases should be in a class by themselves. Neurasthenic cases should also be sympathetically considered if the men can prove they suffered shell shock while actually at the front. There are one or two of these amendments that appeal strongly to me, and if the minister is prepared to relieve an applicant of the full burden of proof I shall support them.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Chairman, may I
change the amendment in the fifth line? I should have put after the word "who" these words: "having served in a theatre of actual war."
The error arose owing to the English act being differently worded.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Mr. Chairman, I protest vigorously against an amendment like this being read into one of the most complicated acts on our statute books. I believe that not half a dozen men in the House can read the amendment correctly into the act, and for myself I decline to take the responsibility of dealing with an amendment of this description without having it put before the law officers of the Crown for their consideration.
Mr. LeSUEUR: From the discussion so far it appears that a number of members feel that this section puts upon the applicant the onus of proof. That, of course, is the ordinary legal principle in all courts, and one would naturally expect it to be the case here. 1 understand that the minister's interpretation of this section is that the matter is entirely in the discretion of the Pension board.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Hear, hear.
Mr. LeSUEUR: To make it absolutely clear I have been wondering if it would be satisfactory to him to insert before the word "attributable" the words "was in the opinion of the board reasonably attributable." That might possibly cover any question of doubt in regard to the onus of proof.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no objection to the words being inserted.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the hon. member introducing the amendment (Mr. Ladner) shall have leave to add in the fifth line thereof after the word "who" the words "having served in a theatre of actual war"?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


George Newcombe Gordon: Then the question i3 upon the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner).
Pension Act

Amendment (Mr. Ladner) negatived.


Edward Joseph Garland: Before the clause carries, I would ask for a definition cl the words "wilfully concealed" in the fifteentn line in subsection (b). There was a period of enlistment when the greatest care was not exercised by the medical examiners in passing volunteers, and many men were accepted without being thoroughly examined. A large number of men were so anxious to enlist that although they may have suffered from such a disability as flat feet or poor eyesight, which afterwards developed into a serious condition, they did not disclose it at the lime for fear they would be rejected. Who is to determine when a man wilfully concealed any disability?


Henri Sévérin Béland: In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the board has experienced any difficulty at all, certainly since I have been minister I have not heard of a single complaint in this regard. "Wilfully concealed" I think would mean, for example, the case of a man who on enlistment failed to mention that three of his toes were missing, and after discharge, because of having served in a theatre of actual war, claimed a pension for the loss of those toes. Well then, the board would say, "You lost them before the war?" and if the answer was in the affirmative, the board would say, "You wilfully concealed that when you enlisted." I do not think this restriction has caused any difficulty. The words "wilfully concealed" were in the original act of 1919: they were in section 25 (3) of the act of 1920; they were in the legislation of 1921 and 1922. If there has been wilful concealment and a man is confronted with that provision of the act, he admits it immediately and there is no further difficulty.
Mr. LeSUEUR: Before the committee proceeds with clause 4 I would like to crave the indulgence of the minister and of the committee to propose an amendment to the interpretation clause, subsection (b) of section 2, in which the words "widowed mother" are, to some extent, defined.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is my hon. friend referring to the Pension Act?
Mr. LeSUEUR: Yes. Under section 47 of the Pension Act, supplementary pension is given to the widowed mother, wife or children of persons domiciled and resident in Canada at the outbreak of war who enlisted in the military forces and who died in service or as the
[The Chairman.]
result of service. Last year the House in its wisdom defined the words "widowed mother" as extending to and including a mother deserted by her husband. I wish to propose an amendment to the interpretation clause, comprising the addition of the following words:
And also a mother whose husband is in a helpless and dependent condition.
Possibly I can best explain what I believe to be the justice of that amendment by citing a case. A boy who had been the support to a certain extent of his mother and a rather sickly father-the father was unable to work continuously-enlisted in the Royal Air Force. He went to the front, fell within the German lines and was killed. The father later became paralyzed; today he is a helpless paralytic, who has to be fed by the mother of this boy and given close attention. The result is that simply because her husband is living, though in a helpless condition, she is unable to collect any supplementary pension in respect of her son's death. From a monetary standpoint she is in a much worse position than if the husband had died; if her husband were dead she would be clearly entitled under the act to collect pension. As it is, she has to give her time to the nursing of her husband; it is a drag on her resources to maintain him, and solely on account of the peculiar wording of the act she is prevented from obtaining a pension. My amendment is to cover cases of that kind.


Charles Gavan Power: I rise to a point of order. I submit that the amendment just proposed is out of order in that it involves additional expenditure on the part of the Crown.


George Newcombe Gordon: I may say that the resolution which preceded this bill provided in part as follows:
That enactments be made respecting pensions for military servics 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 so on. There is no limitation in the resolution which prefaced this legislation as to the amount of public expenditure that 11 p.m. is to be involved. As to the question of a private member not having the right to move an amendment in committee which would increase the public expenditure I may quote the following from May, page 461:
This principle, however, is apparently disregarded when the recommendation of the Crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of public money which, framed in general terms, places no limitation on

Pension Act
the amount of expenditure to be authorized by the resolution. As the resolution sanctions, without any specific limitation, the application of money to be provided by parliament to certain purposes, when the clauses in a bill founded upon such a resolution are before the committee, the freedom of action sanctioned by that resolution can be exercised.
So I must rule that the hon. member's point of order is not well taken.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to discuss the matter at length but I would call your attention to decisions rendered on a similar matter four years in succession when amendments to the Pension Act were brought down. On those occasions I proposed that a certain extension be applied to the words "widowed mother" in the act, and that widowed mothers be granted additional pensions. On every occasion my amendment was ruled out of order by the then chairman of committees, the present member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin). I think these decisions should form some kind of jurisprudence; at least, they ought to be looked into before the Chairman gives a definite decision on the point of order raised now.


George Newcombe Gordon: I have made some inquiry into that, and I am informed that in those instances the resolutions in each case dealt specifically with each particular part of the subject matter of the bill; they were not only very definite in that respect but they were very explicit as to the exact extent to which the bill and the powers and rights created by it went. I understand that the resolution which prefaced the introduction of this money bill was prepared in the widest terms so that the minister would be in a position to consider any amendment that might be offered.


William Stevens Fielding: What is the amendment, Mr. Chairman?


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendment is that there be added to the interpretation clause the words:
And also a mother whose husband is in a helpless and dependent condition.
The question is upon the amendment.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The purpose of the amendment is to consider as a widowed mother a mother who is not a widow but whose husband is in a helpless condition and utterly unable not only to earn his own living but also to care for himself. There is in the Pension Act as it exists to-day, in clause 34, subsection 3, the following provisions:
When a parent or person in the place of a parent who was not wholly or to a substantial extent maintained by the member of the forces at the time of his death subsequently falls into a dependent condition such parent or person may be awarded a pension provided he or she is incapacitated by mental or physical infirmity from earning a livelihood, and provided also that in the opinion o<f the commission such member of the forces would have wholly or to a substantial extent maintained such parent or person had he not died.
I believe the case referred to by my hon. friend would be covered by section 34, subsection 3 of the existing law. I do not think his case would be improved by adding as he proposes to the interpretation the expresison "widowed mother." I have no serious objection to accepting the amendment of my hon. friend. It will have very little consequence financially and I realize the force of the point my hon. friend has made, as to the position of the widowed mother under the circumstances he has mentioned. As far as I am concerned I do not see anything that would be unjust in the proposition of my hon. friend. I even believe it would be fair and generous. I would suggest, however, that my hon. friend read clause 34, subsection 3, carefully and see if he does not think that the case in question is covered by that particular subsection.


Mr. LE SUEUR:: I appreciate the remarks of the minister as to the fairness of the proposal but section 34-3, as I read it, refers to a member of the Canadian forces. This amendment is proposed to cover the case of a member of the royal forces and refers to the supplementary pension to a widowed mother, and would come under section 47 of the Pension Act.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am afraid in that case
the point of order raised should be seriously considered. At any rate we might perhaps wait for a few seconds until my hon. friend has thoroughly considered the effect of the subsection which I quoted.


Richard Vryling LeSueur: I am satisfied on that
point.


Robert James Manion: I have read the clause to
which the minister refers and it does not seem to me that it would cover the case represented by my hon. friend. Anyhow since the minister admits that the amendment would meet the case and would only involve a very small expenditure, why not accept it and let us pass on?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I will accept it.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall clause 3 as
amended carry?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before you pass to the next clause there is a matter I would like to bring up but I do not know whether it would be appropriate to do so at this stage or not. I should like to ask the
Pension Act

minister a question with reference to the time of the appearance of disability. In the case of a widow an amendment was passed by this House last year to the following effect:
(1) Pensions shall, in all cases, be paid to tihe widow of a member of the forces without reference to the time of appearance of the disability, which resulted in his death, unless and until it is substantiated that the marriage of such member was contracted with the intention of procuring pension for such widow, and not a bona fide carrying out of the agreement, provided that such disability shall not have been caused by the act of such member or through vice, and that pension be only payable while such widow remains unmarried.
I believe that amendment was rejected by the Senate. What I should like to ask the minister is, whether it is at all possible for him to see his way clear to reintroducing some clause that would cover that particular point. There was a case in the city of Winnipeg, perhaps the minister may recall it, of Lieutenant Phinney, that very well illustrates the unjustness of the present arrangement if I might just mention that case in a few words. Lieutenant Phinney died as the result of a disability incurred upon active service, and within the meaning of the Pension Act, incurred prior to the time of his marriage. He enlisted with the Fort Garry Horse in August 1914, but in an effort to reach France . he transferred to the Imperial Forces. He was taken sick and returned to Canada and discharged in March 1916. His health recovered and he again volunteered in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and was given a commission in the Canadian Field Artillery. He proceeded overseas and went to France in October, 1917. In February 1918, he was gassed and evacuated to England where he remained in hospital for some time. He made a complete recovery and was discharged A1 for active service in May 1918. Prior to returning to France he was married in England. He served with distinction until the conclusion of the war. winning the Military Cross for his splendid daring and skill in bringing his battery into action in front of the infantry lines at the battle of Cambrai. Upon discharge he was in receipt of a pension, but upon his demise the widow was refused pension on the grounds that the marriage had taken place subsequent to the appearance of the disability. His marriage was contracted at least six months prior to the armistice. The Board of Pension Commissioners admit that death was attributable to service. There has never been any question of "fortune hunting" in this case but because of the inclusion of this unjust provision in the act pension is denied the widow of this splendid soldier.
I Mr. Woodsworth.]
I have no amendment to offer but it seems to me that the amendment of last year probably covers the ground. If not is there any other way in which the minister could meet the situation.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Where can we find the text of that amendment?


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is an amendment, I believe, which was introduced last year.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I cannot find it any place,


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It is possible I have the amendment here that is referred to. I could not follow the wording as given by the hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth) but it appears as section 5 of the amendments of last year. By the way, this is one that had been suggested by myself before the Pension committee during three successive years; it was defeated by a very small majority for two years but last year it carried in committee, was recommended to the House in the report of the committee, was passed by the House, but was rejected by the Senate. The amendment reads as follows:
Subsection one of section thirty-three of the said act, as amended by chapter sixty-two of the statutes of 1920, is further amended by inserting after the words "married to him" in the second line thereof the words "within one year after date of discharge from the forces or".
That covers, I believe, a very limited number of cases. I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth) when he says there is very great hardship in some of these cases. For instance, a member of the forces who enlisted and went overseas but was not married, contracted a disability due to his service and came back and married afterwards and his widow gets no pension if he dies of his war disability. There is another clause in the Pension Act-and I am sorry I have not got a copy of the act before me-which provides that a pension may be granted to a wife if a man lived with her before he went overseas even if not married to her. I think the comparison is odious, and I do not like to make it, but I think, in the case of the man who married even within one year of his discharge or of the appearance of his disability, that his widow should be entitled to the same pension as if he had been married before going overseas. There was an objection raised to it in the first year, and the first amendment I moved two years ago was that if he was married within five years of his discharge, or after the appearance of his disability, the widow would get a pension. The next year

Pension Act
I cut it down to two years after his discharge, and last year I think I went the whole limit and made it one year after his discharge. That made it impossible for any one to take any advantage of this provision because that one year had expired, and there would be no possibility of any woman marrying any returned soldier for the sake of the pension she might get. I would hate to attribute such a motive to any one. But that possibility was obviated by making it one year from his discharge or the appearance of his disability because that time had already expired.
I strongly urge the minister to make this amendment to this bill. I think the number cf cases was quite limited. I do not remember the exact number, but it was given to us. I think the chairman of the Pension committee, who is here tonight, would remember what the number was. The Pension board gave us an estimate-of course it was only an estimate-of the number that would be affected by this amendment, and if my memory serves me it was a limited number.


Charles Gavan Power: The Pension board could not know what would be the number of claimants under the proposed amendment, because a large number of people, knowing that the Pension Act precluded them from obtaining a pension, would not make any claim.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think they gave us an estimate of the possible number.


Charles Gavan Power: How could they?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The estimate would not be based on actual mathematics, but I believe they gave us their opinion. I know of one or two particular cases


George Newcombe Gordon: We are on section 4. I understood the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) desired to ask a question and I thought the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) was seeking to do the same. We are on section 4, but, of course, if the minister desires to answer the question-


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I will wind up by asking the minister if he proposes bringing in an amendment to cover this feature in the Pension Act.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is not covered at all by the present amendment. The Pension Act deals with this case, and no widow can be awarded a pension if she marries a man after the appearance of the disability. I would suggest that we deal with all the sections of the present bill, and, when we are through, perhaps the amendment may be suggested as a clause that could be added to the bill.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Thanks.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Pensions in accord with extent of disability.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This is a repetition of the clause in the Pension Act.
On subsection 2-How extent of disability
estimated.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This is a repetition of the clause in the act.
On subsection 3-When no deduction of pension.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This is the clause in the present act repeated verbatim.


Robert James Manion: I had a suggestion to make as to a brief amendment. It would come under clause 26 of the original bill. Should it be added here or later on?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think we should wait till we get through these clauses.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Date of coming into force.
John Arthur Clark: I understood the minister to raise a point of order in regard to an amendment to the previous section which we were dealing with. I have an amendment to offer to section 33. Do I understand the minister to desire that any such amendments shall be postponed?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, postponed until we have gone through the sections, unless they come directly under any of them.


George Newcombe Gordon: Unless it is to amend the bill as presented to the committee, the minister has requested that the amendments be postponed until the bill has passed the committee.


Thomas Langton Church: I would ask the minister
to consider certain cases of soldiers who are Canadians who served in the Fenian raid and in the South African war. They were very old soldiers, and in their desire to get over to England, they joined the British Expeditionary Force, left Canada, and went over. I understand they do not get any pension under the Pension Act or under these amendments. Could the minister not include those cases? Colonel Ralston thinks they should be considered. As I say many of them are very old soldiers and they are entitled to something. They do not get anything under existing legislation. They were in a hurry to get over, and qualified and went over in the British Expeditionary Force.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This question has been
dealt with by parliamentary committees and they have always refused to carry out the
Pension Act

suggestion. There are very few such cases. In fact, I think there are only two Fenian raid pensioners.


John Arthur Clark: Following up the remarks
of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) I wish to refer to a case which was presented to the Pension board, I know it is not provided for by the act, and perhaps the minister would consider it in framing these amendments. It is the case of a man who joined the Canadian forces and found there would be some delay in getting over. He, therefore, took his discharge in Canada, paid his own way to England, and was drowned on the Lusitania. It can be proved conclusively that the man was a member of the forces here in Canada, I think a member of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and took his discharge from that force in order to joint the British Expeditionary Force so that he could get to France more quickly. As a matter of fact in that particular case the man's discharge from the Canadian Expeditionary Force is of the same date as the sinking of the Lusitania. Is there any provision for such a case as that?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, there is no provision,
but I am a little surprised to hear that the date of his discharge would coincide with the date of his drowning.


John Arthur Clark: That is a fact. I have investigated it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is nothing in the
act that would cover such a case. This man was, as we would say in French, sitting between two chairs. He was between two armies. He was discharged from the Canadian army, proceeded to England, being no longer a member of the Canadian force, and was drowned before he joined the Imperial forces. That case is unfortunate.


John Arthur Clark: Has the Privy Council
power to pass an order in council dealing with such cases where the facts prove conclusively that the case is a just one? Has the Privy Council power to pass an order in council bringing such a case within the Pension Act so that the board can award the pension laid down in the schedules to the act?


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no power conferred in the act on the Governor in Council to pass such an order. I am very reluctant to receive that power from the committee to award a pension, when we think it should be reasonably awarded. I realize, though, that this is an extraordinary case, perhaps one of its kind, but the man was a member of neither force at the time he perished. I do not know where the remedy would be.


John Arthur Clark: I understand last year on
the recommendation of the parliamentary committee, an order in council was passed for payment of a pension to a nursing sister.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not aware of that.


Thomas Langton Church: I agree with what the
hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) has said. I think there are many of these cases throughout Canada. I know of a case similar to that mentioned by the hon. member, the case of a colonel, one of Canada's oldest soldiers. He served at the time of the Fenian raid, the Northwest rebellion; he was one of the principal officers in the Canadian contingent in the South African war. He received no pension on account of all those wars. He left the soil of Canada because he was qualified and the British were after our qualified men. He paid his passage to England; he served for three or four years over there and he returned. Because he signed up with the British Expeditionary Force and not with the Canadian Expeditionary Force, he is not, under existing legislation, entitled to a pension. This case was brought to the attention of Colonel Ralston, and I received a letter from Colonel Ralston stating that there was nothing in the present Pension Act; that it was a matter for the government to consider an amendment to cover a case like this. There are many cases like this. Four or five of the oldest soldiers we have are cut out altogether. They are disabled and they cannot get civilian positions. Many of these men are poor, and I think the minister might very well look into the matter and see that it is considered at the end of this amending bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-District review boards.
Herbert Meredith Marler: This brings up the whole
question of the review boards. I do not know whether the minister desires to discuss this clause to-night or not. I have some remarks of considerable length to make on this clause.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Make them as short as
possible.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I will certainly do that.
I know I have seen this bill before; but when a complicated bill like this is brought down and put through second and third readings the same evening, it is pretty hard to grasp the whole situation. I have no objection to clauses 9 and 10. I should like to speak on clause 11.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The hon. member has no
objection to clauses 9 and 10?

Pension Act


Herbert Meredith Marler: Not as they stand.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is some progress.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I want to speak on clause
11.


George Black: I move that subclause (3) of clause 9 be amended by adding these words "provided that no staff officer or ex-staff officer be eligible for appointment to such board."


John Arthur Clark: What is the hon. member's reason for that?


George Black: My reason is, that
the attitude of staff officers in the army is too much the attitude of the Pension board. I have never seen on active service a staff officer, or a brass hat, or an officer wearing a fur collar on his military coat, that was human.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This is a direct reflection
upon the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark). I resent it very strongly, and for that reason I shall vote against the amendment.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I should like to know
from some of the military gentlemen in this chamber what the effect of this amendment will be. Will it mean that we can get the best class of men for these appeal boards or not?


George Black: We can get men without number who are not and never have been staff officers and who will be better men for these boards than those who have been staff officers.


Herbert Meredith Marler: How does my hon. friend
define a staff officer? What is the exact meaning of a staff officer?


George Black: It is defined in the King's regulations. If my hon. friend had ever been in the army, he would know that.


Herbert Meredith Marler: I have been in the army, but I have never been a staff officer and neither has my hon. friend.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Federal appeal board.
John Arthur Clark: I want to know something about sub-clause (4) of clause 10. Does that mean that the chairman of each district appeal board is to be paid $7,000 a year and each member $6,000 a year? Are there nine appeal boards throughout the country and nine chairmen receiving $7,000 a year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: This clause has reference only to the federal appeal board. Clause 9 dealt with the district review boards.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11

Appeals to district review board:
George Black: I move that the following words be added at the end of subclause (1):
Which recommendation, if favourable to the application for pension, shall be final and shall be adopted by the Board of Pension Commissioners.
In support of that, I may say that I see no reason for sending this application for pensions from pillar to post. The Pension board deals with it. Its decision is adverse. Then you have the district review board, and I submit that the opinion of the district review board, if favourable to the applicant, should end the matter. There is no reason why the government and the public should desire to set aside the decision of the district board, if that decision is favourable to the applicant. Such a decision, I think, should be regarded as final.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am unable to accept the amendment. The royal commission has set out very clearly what the procedure should be in the matter of appeals, and I believe it is only proper that when a decision has been rendered by the district appeal board more favourable to the applicant such recommendation from the district appeal board should be forwarded to the Board of Pension Commissioners that they may carry it into effect; and in case they refuse to carry it out, automatically that decision of the district board will go to the federal appeal board for confirmation or alteration. My hon. friend will see later, as we proceed, that no alteration of the district board's decision can be made by the federal appeal board unless the appellant who received the favourable decision is given an opportunity of appearing personally before the federal board. I think that is a guarantee that the whole scheme will work with some uniformity.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Has the minister considered how many appeals are likely to come to the federal appeal board under subsection 3? The federal appeal board must review substantially every case that goes before the district board.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They will have as many cases as are decided upon by the district appeal boards, with the exception of those appeals, decided by the district boards, which

Pension Act
are carried into effect by the Board of Pension Commissioners.


Herbert Meredith Marler: There is an appeal from the decision of the district appeal boards. In other words, if a soldier appeals to the district appeal board and that board says his case was not properly treated by the Board of Pension Commissioners, the commissioners can appeal to the federal appeal board, if they want to.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They may refuse to carry out the recommendation of the district appeal board, and if they do so, automatically the appellant's case goes to the federal appeal board.


Herbert Meredith Marler: That is not the way the bill reads.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is. Let me read the provisions for my hon. friend. They are as follows:
(4) In oases where the recommendation of the district review board is more favourable to the applicant than the decision appealed against, the federal appeal board may not disapprove the recommendation without giving the applicant an opportunity to appear personally, or be represented before it, at a hearing in the district in which the applicant resides, or at the seat of the federal appeal board as may be deemed more convenient. On this hearing, the federal appeal board shall make such final decision as may appear just.
The section my hon. friend refers to is this:
(2) In case a recommendation more favourable to the applicant than the decision appealed against is not carried into effect within a time specified by regulations made under the powers hereinafter con' ferred, or in case of a recommendation not more favourable to the applicant than the decision appealed against, the recommendation and fyle containing all papers in regard to the case shall be forthwith transmitted by the Board of Pension Commisioners to the federal appeal board, and the Board of Pension Commissioners may at the same time submit for the information of the federal appeal' board a statement of their reasons for not carrying into effect the recommendations of the district review board.
So that if the Board of Pension Commissioners should refuse to carry out the decision of the district appeal board in, say, Halifax, they will have to transmit the decision of the district board in Halifax to the federal appeal board, with a statement of their reason for not carrying it into effect, "and the decision of the federal board shall be final.


Herbert Meredith Marler: It is my opinion, which I offer for what it is worth, that section 11 constitutes exceedingly cumbersome and expensive machinery for the country to carry out. It means that every single decision, good, bad or indifferent, can be appealed from. I do not believe that the federal board will be able to function owing to the enormous number of cases which are likely to come be-

fore it, and in addition to that it is my opinion that the soldiers themselves will find the procedure unsatisfactory. I do not want to go into the matter in any great detail, because one could say very much about it; but this is not the system which has been adopted after a great deal of experience in England. There the practice is that the soldier may appeal on a question of entitlement, that is to say, as to whether or not his injury or aggravation is attributable to war service, which immediately brings him under the act. But on a question of assessment, unless it is the final assessment-and there are final assessments there that is where a soldier is given a certain pension for a definite period-the soldier has an appeal to the boards constituted under the department. In my opinion, I repeat, this is expensive and cumbersome machinery, and I doubt whether the federal board will be able to function. The district review boards will be encumbered with an enormous amount of work, and I do not think that the federal appeal board will be able to deal with all the cases that will be submitted to it, nor do I think that the soldiers will be any more satisfied than they are to-day.


William F. Carroll: I think we are all committed, first, to the unit appeal boards, and also to the federal appeal board. My hon. friend (Mr. Marler) has made a deep study of the question and he is sincere in the views he advances. But I am not concerned at present as to whether this procedure is either cumbersome or expensive. I hold the view that if it is in the interests of the returned soldiers of Canada it should be made effective. As the minister has pointed out, if the district appeal board's decision is not carried out by the commissioners, there is a further appeal to the federal board; automatically, on the refusal of the board of commisioners to carry out the district board's finding, the matter is taken to the federal board. That is only in keeping with the principle that underlies our courts of law. We have various courts of law that are both cumbersome and costly; nevertheless, they are very effective. I believe that the gentleman who framed the report of the Ralston commission, and who is a sound lawyer, saw the point of view of the British people in affording every opportunity of appeal to the returned soldiers.


Herbert Meredith Marler: This is not the British system of appeal in these cases.


William F. Carroll: I am not saying that it is the British system in regard to pensions, but it is undoubtedly the British principle of juris-

Pension Act
prudence. The principle embodied in the provisions of this bill follow that principle as closely as possible.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Follow what?


William F. Carroll: The system of British and Canadian jurisprudence.


Herbert Meredith Marler: It does not follow the British system of pensions.


William F. Carroll: I have already stated that the system proposed in connection with these appeals is not the British system in regard to pensions. What I am pointing out is that it is consistent with British principles of jurisprudence. It provides an appeal step by step to a tribunal which will be ultimately binding. With regard to the amendment of my hon. friend from Yukon (Mr. Black), I know that that hon. gentleman is absolutely sincere in his regard for the welfare of the returned soldiers of Canada. The hon. gentleman's amendment, however, might work very disastrously to the cause of the returned soldiers.


George Black: No.


William F. Carroll: Well, let us consider the matter. Does the hon. member desire to make the district appeal board's decision final?


George Black: If favourable to the applicant.


William F. Carroll: Then I do not think that is quite fair. The applicant, of course, is a returned soldier, and while I desire to see everything given the returned man that we can possibly give him, at the same time we must administer British law impartially both to the applicant and to the other party interested in the matter. There must not be one law for the applicant and another law for the Board of Pension Commissioners. If you have a court of appeal it must be open to all who are interested in the questions it has to decide; and if you have a district appeal board and you declare that a decision which it makes that is unfavourable to the returned soldier shall be appealed against, but that any decision in the returned man's favour shall be final and be subject to no appeal, then you are obviously creating class legislation in this country, which personally I do not like. I emphasize once again the fact that I am as favourable towards giving to the returned soldiers all that we can possibly give them as is any other member in this House, but I do say that we must treat all alike. I agree with my hon. friend from St. Lawrence (Mr. Mar-ler) that the section will be rather cumbersome and perhaps somewhat expensive. But
I do not regard this as any insuperable objection to it, for I certainly think it will safeguard the rights, both of the returned soldiers, whom we all want to see protected, and of the exchequer of Canada. I am therefore thoroughly in favour of the provision.


Robert James Manion: I want to say just a few words in regard to subsection 2 of section 10 with reference to tenure of office. It has been pointed out that the commissioners shall be appointed for a period of five years. There are three of them, two at $6,000, and one at $7,000, or, in all, $19,000; and over the period of five years this will mean a total expenditure of $95,000. We are therefore tying ourselves up for this amount for salaries alone, and the minister knows very well that in addition to this there will be secretariats of various kinds, besides travelling and other expenses. Instead of making these appointments for five years, I would suggest that we make them for two. For this reason. Supposing at the end of a couple of years that this system was not found satisfactory, or that under it practically all appeals had been dealt with, and that consequently it was desired by any government then in power to do away with this expensive civil service, under the present legislation they could do nothing, whereas if we made the appointments for two years they could be renewed from time to time while the necessity for the board continued. I know the argument will be advanced that it would be difficult to get men to serve for two years, but I do not think so. I fear that we are building up not only in this branch but in all other branches a civil service which is an appalling expense to the country, and I think the time has come when we should take seriously into account the large salaries of these executives. I think, without interfering with the efficiency of the proposed board, we might very well cut down the tenure of office to two years.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Mr. Chairman, it was also my desire to have this federal appeal board appointed for as short a period as possible. I may point out that the Board of Pension Commissioners is appointed for ten years, and the salaries are exactly the same, $7,000 for the chairman and $6,000 for each of the commissioners. It is of course impossible to fix lower salaries for the federal appeal board commissioners than those we have granted to the Board of Pension Commissioners. Now, if we should reduce the appointment to two years I am afraid it would not be possible to find three outstanding men willing to give up their vocations and devote the whole of

Pension Act

their time to this work, because it is provided in one of the subsections of section 10 that these commissioners shall devote the whole of their time to the performance of their duties and shall not engage in any other occupation. That is my reason for thinking they should be appointed for five years. I asked the opinion of the members of the royal commission on this very question, and at first they suggested ten years, but on further consideration they thought five years would be more satisfactory. The members of the district review boards will be appointed for one year only and will be part time men, in view of the fact that after a year we expect there will be a great contraction of their work. It may be that by that time the number of appeals will have decreased so considerably that two or three district boards will be sufficient to deal with them. But I believe it will be the sentiment of parliament in the years to come that there should always be in Ottawa a federal appeal board above the Board of Pension Commissioners. To-day we are the only belligerent country in the world without an appeal board. I grant the expenditure will be large, but what we have to do is in discharge of what we consider to be a national duty to our returned men. I remember when the Land Settlement Act was introduced in this House by the previous government the measure contained so many provisions that appeared cumbersome and difficult of application that we doubted whether it would be a success. During the first year there is no question but what we will experience many difficulties under this measure, and whether we shall be able to overcome them entirely or not remains to be seen, but I hope we shall be able to rise superior to all of such difficulties.


Mr. LOGAN:: In reference to the point raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler), while there may be some question as to this measure being cumbersome, I was very much impressed to-night by the speech of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill). He pointed out that for one year an able commission, presided over by a very capable soldier-lawyer in the person of Lieutenant-Colonel Ralston, had been travelling all over the Dominion investigating soldiers' grievances, and as a result of the evidence submitted to them they had made certain recommendations. They have made certain recommendations, and I agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that we might fairly accept those recommendations. They come as the well-matured suggestions of those who have had 	:	glU
to do with questions of this kind, and I hardly think that we here to-night, who may not, perhaps, have had much experience in the matter, should suggest changes in the proposals made by the commission. In refer ence to the appointment of a district board the Ralston commission says:
After considering all the suggestions received from representatives of ex-service men and the systems in vogue in both Great Britain and the United States the commission has come to the conclusion that an appeal procedure which would meet conditions in Canada and fairly protect the interests of both the ex-service man and his dependents, and the country, would be the following which is hereby recommended:
(a) The establishment, under the Department of Justice, of a district review board for each of the nine D.S.C.R. districts, and of a federal appeal board for the Dominion of Canada, the personnel of each of these tribunals to consist of a medical man, a lawyer and a layman, at least two of whom shall be ex-service men.


William F. Carroll: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that every Great War Veterans' organization in this country recommended that before the Ralston commission?


Hance James Logan: That makes their recommendation all the stronger. I think we may very well declare that part of the section carried. I suggest also that the recommendation of the Ralston commission in reference to subsection (c) be adopted, namely, that the time within which the entering of appeal may be made be one year instead of three months. On page 17 of their first interim report the Ralston commission say:
The right of appeal to be open for one year from the coming into force of the regulations, or for one year after the decision complained of, whichever may be last.
But in the bill the one year is changed to three months. I think that three months is entirely too short a time within which appeal may be entered, particularly having regard to the fact that our soldiers are scattered all over the face of the globe. I do not know why we should not adopt the recommendation of the Ralston commission and make the time one year. I beg to move that-


George Newcombe Gordon: There is already an amendment before the committee, moved by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black). Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt this amendment?


Mr. SHAW:: I think the minister's attitude in connection with this amendment is a correct one. He has very properly referred to the question of uniformity. You cannot have a final decision by one district board which may be entirely out of harmony with the final decision of a board somewhere else. An automatic appeal to the federal appeal

Pension Act
board secures uniformity throughout the whole Dominion. If you do not have uniformity you will have continual complaints from soldiers, because many of them will find out that in one part of Canada the soldiers get one sort of treatment, and in another part, another. So that an appeal to the federal appeal board is absolutely necessary.


George Black: The remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) would seem to indicate that the district appeal board is of no use whatever. Why have a district board at all if you are going to go on to a federal appeal board? Why not make your appeal direct from the Pension board to the federal appeal board? The district review board is of no use; it cannot give a decision that will be acted upon in any event. It is only an additional expense and an additional worry to the returned soldier. He will make application to the Pension board for pension; if the board rules against it the appeal goes to the district review board, and no matter what decision they give, there must be an appeal to the federal appeal board.


William F. Carroll: Not necessarily.


George Black: If the decision of the district review board is in favour of the applicant, why not make it final? The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) undertook to show how the amendment could be embarrassing to the returned soldier; (here is nothing more impossible in the world. It would be most satisfactory to the returned soldier-in fact, too satisfactory. How anything could be too satisfactory to the returned soldier to suit this House I am at a loss to understand. Why keep him dangling between one board and another? If the Pension board says no and the district review board says yes, why not let it go at that; why worry the soldier by asking him to go to the federal appeal board? Is not the country satisfied, is not the returned soldier satisfied, if the district review board decides in his favour?


William F. Carroll: Then the hon. member is in favour of doing away alto-
12 m. gether with the federal appeal board?


George Black: Not if the decision is against the returned soldier. Give him another chance; let him go to the federal appeal board if the decision is against him. But if the decision is in his favour the public should not want to combat the decision. * I do not think the minister wants to do it; I do not think the taxpayer wants to do it. It is an imposition on the returned soldier to force him to go from that district board to the federal board if the decision of the district board is in his favour.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it not a fact that
if the district review board decides against the pensioner he does not then go before the federal appeal board?


Henri Sévérin Béland: He does.


William F. Carroll: The point taken by the
hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) is very much stronger than anything I could have said. Suppose, for example, that in the district of Halifax, which comprises quite a large area, a man suffering from tubercular disease gets a decision from the unit appeal board which gives him a pension, and out in Calgary a man under exactly similar conditions gets a decision against him. There is no doubt that there would be dissension if that condition existed. The man in Calgary would say, "Well, the eastern man has got the best of us; he has a decision from his board that we are unable to get from ours." The method proposed is based on the same principle as that which applies in the case of our courts: we have a trial judge, we have the Supreme Courts of the various provinces, then we have appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is what I was trying to point out to my hon. friend from Montreal a few moments ago. There is one question, however, I would like to ask the minister: I think I heard him say a little while ago that these amendments as drafted had been presented to the federal command of the Great War Veterans' Association, who had expressed themselves as being in favour of them. Is that correct?


Henri Sévérin Béland: As soon as the bill was
printed I sent a copy of it to the office to which my hon. friend refers. The only suggestion I received from them was that the time within which appeal should be made might be extended to one year. That is the suggestion the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Logan) made. They also suggested something along the line referred to by my bon. friend from Winnipeg, with regard to marriage after the appearance of disability.


George Black: I do not think it could be suggested for a moment that if the
Great War Veterans' Association or any soldiers' organization were asked whether a decision of the district board favourable to the soldier should be final, they would not say yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Of course they would say yes.
Pension Act


George Black: Sub-section 2 says:
In case a recommendation more favourable to the applicant-
And so on. Who is to say whether the decision is more favourable or not to the applicant, who is going to be the judge of
that?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend asks who is going to say that?


George Black: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Any child could say it. If you have a 20 per cent disability and you appeal to have more and 30 per cent is granted, I think anybody can say it is more favourable. If you have no pension, and you appeal, and you are awarded a pension, I think it is more favourable, but if your appeal is not granted then the recommendation is not more favourable. My hon. friend has not given any thought to that.


George Black: I have given some thought to the matter. The hypothetical cases which the minister has cited are easy of discernment. If a man's disability is fixed at 20 per cent and it is increased to 30 per cent it is easy enough to see that it is more favourable. But if the district board gives a decision in the ambiguous way in which the Pension board has time and again given it, and which no one not even a lawyer can interpret, it is going to be very difficult to say whether it is more favourable or unfavourable.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No such decision can be rendered.


George Black: They may have given a decision which in the end does not grant a pension but still it may be argued that it is more favourable than the decision retidered by the Pension board, and who is to say whether it is more favourable or unfavourable? I want the wording to be such as will make the decision of the district board final and let it go at that, that is if we desire to ameliorate the condition of the returned soldier.


Robert James Manion: I think a very strong argument has been advanced by the hon. member for Yukon. I know that very often in the past there has been a complaint among the soldiers that in case o{ an examination by a local board as to pension the result was told to the applicant and then the report was sent into the Pension commissioners at Ottawa, and there was some cutting down of the decision. I think the minister will admit that on many occasions under this

clause there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction. Certainly it has appeared to me many times to be rather a strange thing that when a local board of whatever number of doctors, three I think usually, examine a case and, we will say, award a 40 per cent pension, that after they have sent in their report to the Pension board it has been cut down to 20 or 30 per cent. It has always appeared to me very strange that the Pension board should presume-because that is the proper word to use-to alter the decision of the three men who have examined the man. In the same way in the cases mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Black) there would be some questions asked. It is true that the law makes provision that the applicant may appear before an appeal board but if unsuccessful he would have to pay his own expense.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Not before the federal appeal board.


Robert James Manion: He would if he was unsuccessful.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Not if he was unsuccessful.


Robert James Manion: Then I have read the clause wrongly.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I will read the clause if my hon. friend will listen to me:
The expenses of the successful applicant in appearing before the district review board shall be paid on the scale now allowed applicants brought in for periodical medical examination, and the expenses of applicant or his representative in appearing before the federal appeal board shall, if the attendance of either be required by that board, also be paid on the same scale.


Robert James Manion: Yes. But there is the provision "if the attendance be required by that board." He may not be required by the board. They may decide without requiring the attendance.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Will my hon. friend bear with me for one more second?


Robert James Manion: Yes. Will the minister tell us what clause he is reading?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am now going to read
sub-section 4 of section 11:
In cases where the recommendation of the district review board is more favourable to the applicant than the decision appealed against, the federal appeal board may not disapprove the recommendation without giving the applicant an opportunity to appear personally, or be represented before it, at a hearing in the district in which the applicant resides, or at the seat of the federal appeal board as may be deemed more convenient. On this hearing the federal appeal board shall make such final decision as may appear just.

Pension Act


George Newcombe Gordon: We are considering subsection 1 of clause 11 to which an amendment has been moved by Mr. Black (Yukon). Is it the pleasure of the committee that the amendment be adopted?
Amendment negatived.


Robert James Manion: I just wish to go a little further in order to get the point cleared up. I do not think that the two clauses the minister has read are necessarily to be interpreted as he interprets them. I think they may be interpreted that way or they may be interpreted otherwise. To repeat what the minister read:
The expenses of the applicant or his representative in appearing before the federal appeal board shall, if the attendance of either be required by that board, also be paid on the same scale.
The other clause quoted by the minister says, they shall give him the opportunity of appearing. Suppose they do not require him to appear but he takes the opportunity of appearing? I think the clauses conflict.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They cannot reach a more favourable recommendation without giving him the opportunity to appear.


Robert James Manion: I would not say that the interpretation is absolutely as the minister makes it.


George Black: I should like to
ask the minister who is to decide when the recommendation is more favourable or otherwise under section 2?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Well the decision itself expresses the fact in plain language.


George Black: Who is to interpret it, the minister, the board, or the returned soldier?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No; the decision itself. If [DOT] the appeal of the man for an increased pension is not sustained he does not get a more favourable decision. If he gets an increase of pension he has a more favourable decision. Nothing could be clearer.
Subsection 2 agreed to.
On subsection 5-Time for appeals.


George Newcombe Gordon: Mr. Logan has moved an amendment to subsection 5 to strike out the words "three months" and substitute the words "one year" in lieu thereof.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Is that in accordance
with the recommendation of the commission, and is it satisfactory to the organizations of ex-service men?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The royal commission
recommended one year. I consulted the Department of Justice and asked them what was the procedure in the law courts. They intimated to me that a month or thirty days was usually the time allowed for an appeal. I concluded that perhaps three months would be a reasonable delay, that is how that period oame to appear in this clause. The recommendation of the conclusion was for one year. I realize that three months is too short and I am willing to accept it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On subsection 10-Payment of expenses.
Herbert Meredith Marler: There should be another section here in order to tie up the appeals with the Pension Act. I bring that to the attention of the minister, as section 11-
All appeals under this section shall be tried and decided under the provisions of the Pension Act and amendments thereto.
It is in order to tie up the appeal board with the Pension Act itself.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is tied up now.


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, I do not think so.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We should have a little more explanation. I did not catch the purport of the amendment.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The purport of that amendment is that when these boards of appeal are established they shall look to the Pension Act and amendments thereto as the basis of their appeal in law.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Is that not implied?


Herbert Meredith Marler: No.


Charles Gavan Power: When we constituted the Supreme Court I do not think we said, "All decisions shall be made according to the law."


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would think it was implied.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The House can take it or leave it as it thinks proper, but I have gone through the section with the greatest care with those who understand the subject, and they tell me that they approve of my suggestion.


William F. Carroll: This is an amendment to the Pension Act, and all appeals and all trials under the amendment must be in conformity with the Pension Act.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If any amendment is to be made to the Pension Act no such clause as
Pension Act

this should be added. If it is necessary, of course I have no objection to it, but I do not think it is necessary.


Hance James Logan: In my humble opinion this amendment of my hon. friend, with all due respect, is ridiculous. You might as well put at the end of every act we pass a provision that the court shall adjudicate according to this act. It is the law, and they have to adjudicate according to it.


Mr. HUMPHREY:: I am inclined to think the amendment is going to destroy all the good this present bill would accomplish, and that it will tie up the Pension Act in such a way that it will not function. I take it that it is nothing more than an amendment put forward by the sympathizers of the Board of Pension Commissioners.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The hon. member has no right to make that allegation, and I ask him very kindly to withdraw it. I can give him my word there is no such suggestion. I have studied the matter with great care, and I am just as much in favour of the returned man as he is. Perhaps he has not the discernment to see ic. This is a fair and open amendment. I do not force my opinion on the hon. member. I suggest that he withdraw the allegation he made.


Levi William Humphrey: I do not see that there is anything in the allegation to take exception to. The amendment presented is absolutely unnecessary. Many hon. members of this House and people outside of this House have studied this particular act. We had a commission that sat for a year for the purpose of suggesting legislation which would have no restrictions to prevent it from functioning. Each member of this committee sitting here to-night is just as eager to have legislation brought in that will function properly as are those members who are submitting the different amendments. As far as the allegations go, I cannot see that there has been any reflection, but it is a well known fact-and the opinion has been expressed in this House- that the Board of Pension Commissioners have not functioned as the people of Canada think they should function; and that is why this particular legislation is introduced. Therefore, I cannot see how I can support the amendment. _
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the title carry?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Before the bill is reported, I have an amendment which the min-
ister asked me to withhold until the other provisions of the bill were passed. It will be an amendment to section 33 of the Pension Act.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Section IS of the bill.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The amendment is-
Subsection 1 of section 33 of the said act as amended by chapter 62 of the statutes of 1920 is further amended by inserting after the words "married to him" in the second line thereof the words "within one year from the date of discharge from the forces".


Charles Gavan Power: I rise to pretty nearly the same point of order, as the last one. This amendment involves additional expense to the Crown. It is true in your decision, Mr. Chairman, you stated the minister had given notice and had brought down a resolution which was in very wide and general terms and could cover all possible amendments, but I will call your attention to the resolution. It says:
Resolved that it is expedient to amend the Pension Act, chapter 43 of the statutes of 19X9 and the amending acts, and to provide-
1. That enactments be made respecting pensions for military services-
The amendment proposed by my hon. friend for Victoria and Carleton is not respecting pensions for military service. It is respecting pensions granted in respect of military service.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am surprised at the hon. member.


Charles Gavan Power: The widow of the soldier does not get any pension for her military service; so that under the strict interpretation of the wording of the resolution the amendment of my hon. friend is out of order. The widow gets a pension on account of the military service of her late husband, but she does not get any pension for military service.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is that not true of all soldiers' widows who do get pensions?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, it is true.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think nobody but a lawyer would think of such a technical interpretation.


Charles Gavan Power: When a man has been caught up on these technical points so often, he does not see why somebody else should not suffer, particularly when he is pleading a bad case.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am glad he admits the bad case.

Pension Act


Charles Gavan Power: I submit under the terms of the resolution the amendment is not in order.


George Newcombe Gordon: I fear I must rule against the hon. member. The resolution preliminary to the bill, section 1, says:
That enactment be made respecting pensions for military services rendered during the war and after the war.
It does not say to whom these pensions shall be paid for the services rendered by those who did render such services, and pensions are payable to either dependents of those who might be classed as dependents. I think, in view of the discussion which has taken place, and in view of what the hon. member knows as to whom pensions are payable, that it must mean any person the House may decide is entitled to a pension.


Charles Gavan Power: All through the Pension Act we find these words, "pensions shall bs awarded to 1 or in respect of members of the force." When they say "in respect of members of the force" they mean to dependents on account of the services of members of the force. So that if the minister, when he brought down his resolution, wished to allow the field to be open for amendments which would grant pensions to other than those who actually earned the pensions on the field of battle, he would have said "for military service" or "in respect of military service." I submit that is the wording of the act; it is carried all through the act, and it has been carried through the act since 1919.


George Newcombe Gordon: I feel I must find that the wording is more general and wider in the act than in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Caldwell).


William F. Carroll: What is the effect of the
amendment?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The effect will be to
grant a pension to the widow of a soldier who marries after his disability has appeared, if he was married within one year after his discharge.


Levi William Humphrey: Is this the same
amendment that was passed by this House a year ago?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes. After due investigation by the Pension committee last year, it was recommended in the report of the Pension committee that this should be embodied in the act, and it was passed by this House, I think without any dissent.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, there was.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Possibly by the hon.
member for Quebec South (Mr. Power); but I do not think we took his suggestion seriously, even at that time, because he is very sympathetic to the soldier and his dependents. We all know that. When the bill went to the Senate, the bill was amended by cutting out this clause.


Charles Gavan Power: Whatever the hon. member
for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) may say, I have serious objection to this amendment, and I have objected to it even since I have been a member of the Pension committee, that is, since the session of 1918. I seriously and conscientiously believe there should be some finality about these pensions. The woman who marries an ex-soldier after the appearance of a disability, enters into this bond with her eyes open. She knows he is suffering from a disability, and she should not be pensionable at his death. If we now allow this widow to obtain a pension, I am morally certain that at the next election, -or if not at the next election, the election after that, because at the next election there will be a good government in power, but at the next election after that there might not be-we shall have this placed before the party which is in power: "You have already granted a pension to the woman who marries one year after the appearance of a disability. Why not extend that to five years?" The hon. member for Carleton told us at one time that he wished to extend it to five years. They might be asked: "Why not extend it to ten years? Why not extend it to the very moment before the death of the ex-soldier?" We shall have an ex-soldier at the age of seventy-five or eighty marrying a young woman and have pensions continuing in aeternum. We shall be paying more than they do in the United States, where they are paying more for pensions to-day than they were at the end of the Civil War. I am afraid to open the door. There are many cases which deserve sympathetic consideration; but if we once open the door, election after election we shall have to extend this and extend it until such time as we shall have a pension bill that the country will not be able to stand.


Robert James Manion: All kinds of promises were made at the last election.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. The hon. member
made some, and so did I.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The pre-election promises of the hon. member for Quebec South seem to be haunting him somewhat.


Charles Gavan Power: No, they are not.
Pension Act


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have no fear of
pre-election promises because I made none. I do not feel that this is a radical thing to do at all. It was passed by this House last year without any serious dissent. It is a matter of justice due to the widow of a soldier, who married him within one year after his discharge. There is no danger of opening the door. Three years ago I moved this amendment in committee that it would be applicable to anyone married within five years of the discharge. At that time the five years had not elapsed, and there was an objection that this might be taken advantage of by some women wishing to marry a soldier for his pension. I did not feel there was danger of that then; but due to the fact that the year has expired some time ago, I do not think there is trouble to be feared in passing this amendment.


Levi William Humphrey: I feel that the door should be open to some extent to provide for a certain number of cases, and to provide for that certain number of cases, the door must be open for at least a year. There are a number of cases particularly of men who went overseas in the early stages of the war and who came back to the Old Country and got married. In that respect I fail to see how these particular widows can be provided for unless we open the door for at least a year. Although I am not in favour of going to any great extent, I should like to ask the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) in just what way he would provide for those that enlisted in the early stages of the war, went to France, returned to England and married, again returned to France and afterwards met with casualties, if we do not open the door for at least a year. Because those men enlisted in all good faith, went to France and back and were married, this all taking place before the Pension Act was drafted, before we had a Pension Act or any pension regulations. In that way I feel that this amendment is only meeting a situation that the country believes is fair and right.


Charles Gavan Power: I would simply not give
a pension to a woman who married after the appearance of a disability.


Levi William Humphrey: Does the hon. member not think such women are entitled to pensions?


Charles Gavan Power: No.
Amendment (Mr. Caldwell) agreed to: yeas 21; nays 17.


John Arthur Clark: I beg to move:
That section 33, subsection (2) chapter 43, 1919, be amended by striking out the words:
"Provided that the death occurs within five years after the date of retirement or discharge of the date of commencement of pension."
I will explain this in a few words. I brought the matter to the attention of the minister the other evening and, while he did not express himself, I understood him to be unfavourable to the proposition. It is this. Suppose a man was wounded overseas and was 100 per cent disabled. He came back to Canada and his wife cared for him for a period of five years. He dies in the sixth year, and in order that his widow shall receive a pension she must prove that the man's death was strictly attributable to service. If she cannot prove this, the pension is not awarded. On the other hand, if the man dies within the five year limit, the widow is entitled to the pension. My contention is that if the man was so severely wounded as to come within any of the classes 1 to 5 the circumstances of his family are practically as bad as they would be had he been killed. In fact, viewing the matter apart from the question of his wife's affections, and considering, for the purposes of argument, merely the material aspect of the case, it would have been probably better had he been killed outright, because his wife must necessarily suffer considerably in supporting him. I think, therefore, that the time limit should be wiped out. I have in mind a particular case which I brought to the minister's attention and with which the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) is familiar. The case recently arose in that hon. gentleman's constituency of one Private MacPhail.


Robert Forke: This man was absolutely blinded and was gassed, so that he was utterly unable to earn a cent in any way. He was a burden to his wife and died recently. Yet she cannot get a pension.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The Pension Act provides that if a pensioner, who comes within the classes 1 to 5, that is to say. who receives a pension of 80 to 100 per cent, dies from any cause other than service before the expiration of five years, the widow will be pensionable just as though he had died from disabilities due to service. The provision was inserted in the Pension Act originally for the purpose of meeting the cases in the first few years of high disability pensioners. For instance, a man may have lost an arm or a leg or an eye. He would receive a disability pension which would entitle his widow, if he died within five years, to a pension, whatever

Pension Act
might be the cause of his death. That provision was made, I take it, for the purpose of affording the pensioner sufficient opportunity the more easily to support his disability. Since then the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act was passed by this parliament giving the privilege to any man in any physical condition whatever to secure insurance just for the asking and without medical examination. Such cases as my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke) and my hon. friend from Burrard (Mr. Clark) have mentioned would therefore come under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act. Any high disability pensioner could insure his life for $5,000 or less in favour of his wife and if any accident happened to him and he died of any other cause than disability due to war service his wife would receive the insurance. But in this case to which my hon. friend has referred, we must fix a time limit, and five years was considered reasonable. We hear of it now because the five years are up in some cases. Still it is the privilege at the present time of all those high disability pensioners to insure for $5,000 as a maximum. I submit that to the committee and am willing to abide by their decision.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is on the amendment.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the amendment?


George Newcombe Gordon: It is moved by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark):
That section 33, subsection (2) chap. 43, 1919, be amended by striking out the words: "Provided that the death occurs within five years after the date of retirement or discharge or the date of commencement of pension."


Henri Sévérin Béland: Do I understand it is the intention that for all time to come these men shall receive a pension, no matter what the cause of their disability is?	.


John Arthur Clark: Not at all. Where a man is so severely wounded in the field that he becomes 100 per cent disabled, I want his case to be treated in the same way as if he had been killed. Because he is a 100 per cent disability case, therefore he is of no more value to his wife than the dead man would be to the widow.


Robert Forke: It may seem almost amusing to talk in this way, but in the particular case referred to the man was 100 per cent incapacitated. He was blind, he had been gassed, and was absolutely a burden upon his wife.


John Arthur Clark: There are many such cases.


Robert James Manion: It is apparent that in the case explained by the hon. member for Bur-rard (Mr. Clark) the wife might be placed in
a worse position than if her husband was killed, because if later he dies her pension is cut off, whereas if he had died at the front she would receive a pension. I think it is a very reasonable request and should be accepted.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not think we are at present in a position to decide this definitely. I would propose to my hon. friend that instead of five years we say six, which will cover all the cases now pending.


John Arthur Clark: It will not cover the very case cited by the leader of the Progressive party.


Henri Sévérin Béland: When did this man die?


John Arthur Clark: Just a few days ago.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He will be covered.


John Arthur Clark: No, he was discharged early in 1917.


Robert Forke: This happened in the first year of the war when the man had only been overseas for a short time. He was taken prisoner by the Germans and through maltreatment he lost his sight. He came back in the early years of the war, and his case did more to enliven enlistment in the Brandon district than anything else that happened. It created that war spirit which proved such a stimulus to enlistment everywhere. But I can see the difficulty the minister has in mind.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Is this the case the hon. member brought up before the parliamentary committee last year?


John Arthur Clark: No.
Amendment (Mr. Clark) agreed to. Yeas 25, nays 21.


Thomas Langton Church: Has the minister made any provision in the new legislation to take care of those Canadians who belonged to the British Expeditionary Force and do not get any pension at all?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


Thomas Langton Church: I understand that some of those men get a small pension of $17, and are total disability cases. The pension is too small for their support. I think we might take care of such cases and make up the deficiency under our act.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They have the option of taking the Canadian or the British rates.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is moved by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion):
That there be added to subsection 2 of section 26 of the Pension Act 1919, and amendments thereto, the
Pension Act

following:	"Provided however, that the Board of
Pension Commissioners shall have discretion to pay the pension to any person who was being, or was entitled to be, supported by the pensioner at the time of his last examination."


Robert James Manion: This amendment is to cover such cases as I cited a couple of days ago. Suppose a man is being paid a 70 per cent pension, it is a temporary pension and he has to be examined every six months. Perhaps he gets into trouble or deserts his wife and children, goes across to the States and fails to reappear for examination. According to my understanding his pension is cut off. This amendment is to give the commission discretion to continue the pension to his wife and children as if the man had complied with the conditions. I think it is only just to the wife and children that this amendment should be accepted. There are not many such cases, but when they do occur great hardship results to the man's dependents. I do not think the minister could have any objection to this proposal, for discretion is left entirely to the commission.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is a new principle entirely. A man may have died from any cause other than a war cause, and a pension would be awarded to the wife and children for three or four years after he died when in the ordinary course they would not be entitled to anything.


Robert James Manion: If after looking into the case the commission feel the man would have been allowed a pension, it would be entirely at their discretion to award a pension to his dependents. I do not think there are many cases which are left to the commission's discretion under this legislation.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There are a great many cases of desertion.


Robert James Manion: It would be up to the commission to decide whether the wife and children should be given a pension. However, I am in the hands of the committee.
Amendment (Mr. Manion) agreed to.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall I report the bill?


John Arthur Clark: Mr. Chairman, before the bill is reported I wish to again refer to a type of case which I mentioned the other evening and which I think should be provided for in this amended bill. The case is that of a man with a wife in Canada going overseas and contracting a bigamous marriage, although there were no suspicious circumstances and the second wife thought the marriage was bona fide. Subsequently the man was killed
[The Chairman.]
at the front and the widow in Canada claimed a pension. The act as it now stands requires that a pension shall be paid to one wife only. I made the proposal that under the circumstances I have outlined the pension should be payable to both women or at least that there should be a discretion in the Board of Pension Commissioners to so order. I put the facts of a particular case before the minister, and he stated that it could be dealt with without amendment. I wrote him to find out how, but I have not yet had a reply. Possibly he has not yet received my letter.


Charles Gavan Power: Did my hon. friend say that the man left two widows?


John Arthur Clark: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: Then one of them could not have been his widow.


John Arthur Clark: Technically, that is so. But these are the facts: The man had a wife in Canada, went overseas, committed bigamy, but so far as the second woman was concerned she knew nothing about his previous marriage until after his death. She came to Canada, claimed a pension and was refused because the first wife made a similar claim, which was allowed.


Charles Gavan Power: But under the present act the commission may, in its discretion, give a pension to the unmarried wife. So I do not know what my hon. friend has to complain of. I think I remember two or three years ago a case similar to that cited by my hon. friend from Burrard (Mr. Clark). A man had been separated from his wife for seven or eight years, proceeded overseas, committed bigamy and later was killed in action. Both widows put in claims. The Board of Pension Commissioners, if my memory serves me right granted a pension to the unmarried wife on the ground that the first one had deserted him and was not entitled to any consideration. She had not written to him or had not lived with him for seven or eight years, therefore they thought the second wife was more attached to him, though she was not married to him-she could not have been, because he had already contracted marriage with another. For these reasons they gave her the pension. So that the Pension boar! has discretion to do the same thing in the case my hon. friend mentions.


John Arthur Clark: The board has discretion, it is true, but here is a case where the wife who was left in Canada had a family and there had been no separation. The deceased, however, after going to France, had

Pension Act
married this other woman on the 29th of January, 1916, and he was killed on September 29th, 1916. A daughter was born of that bigamous marriage on January 4th, 1917. Both of these women are absolutely above suspicion, and consequently it was perfectly natural that the Pension board should award the real widow the pension. But it cannot be said that the woman who went through the form of marriage on the second occasion is not entitled to consideration. She contracted the marriage in good faith; her marriage certificate is produced and is above suspicion. [DOT]


Charles Gavan Power: After reflecting on the various phases of the Pension Act regarding the unmarried wife and cases such as the one mentioned by my hon. friend. I make this observation : that the boys are going to have a very good time in the next war.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, the House adjourned at 12.55 a.m. (Thursday).
Thursday, June 14, 1923