Mr. SPEAKER:

I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, a certificate of the election and return of Ernest Lapointe, Esquire, for the electoral district of Quebec East.

Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Mr. .Ernest Lapointe, member-elect for the electoral district of Quebec East, who has taken the oath, signed the roll and now desires to take his seat.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Let the hon. member take his seat.

Hon. JAMES CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved:

That the report of the Special Committee appointed on the 18th day of September last, to which was referred Bill No. 10, to amend the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Act and the Orders in Council relative to the work of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment which were laid on the table of the House on the 16th day of September for the consideration thereof, and of all matters pertaining thereto, which was presented to the House on the 31st day of October last, be received, and that the expenditure recommended therein, or which would be required for carrying out the recommendations therein, be commended to the consideration of the Government.

For full text of the report of the Special Committee see House of Commons Journals Addendum to Votes and Proceedings, No. 43, of date Friday, October 31, 1919.

He said: The report which was tabled last Friday is a somewhat lengthy one, probably an unusually lengthy one for a document of this kind. I am sure, however, that all the members of the House recognize that the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 10, had a very difficult and complex problem to deal with. In any event, after the committee had completed its work, it came to the decision that, owing to the nature of the problem and the widespread interest that is taken in it, it would be advisable for the committee to set forth its views and find-

ings at length in order that the members of the House as well as those in the country who are interested in the problem, might be able to get a fairly comprehensive grasp of the subject under consideration. I think the House will agree that in that, respect the committee took the proper course.

At the outset of my remarks, I desire to clear up a certain misapprehension that exists, not in this House but outside of it. The view was represented to us in the committee on several occasions that this matter would not come before Parliament; that the committee would itself decide the problem that was under consideration. The returned men who are interested in this question which the House must consider, are not acquainted with Parliamentary procedure, and they had an idea that because this problem had been referred to a committee, the finding of that committee would be final and decisive, and binding upon Parliament. For the information not of the House, but of those outside of the House who are interested in this question, I wish merely to state what every hon. member knows, namely, that the report or the committee is not binding in any sense upon Parliament. The committee was simply appointed to inquire into the question that was referred to us by Parliament for a report to Parliament. That we have done. We have come to our conclusions; the findings and recommendations of the committee are contained in the report, and it is now for Parliament itself to decide whether or not the recommendations which we make shall be approved.

Those who approached us on behalf of the men were very desirous that this question should be threshed out in Parliament, and that an opportunity should be given for every member of the House to express his views. That, of course, is being done by this motion which I have moved, which will give every hon. member the right to express his views on this question; and if such be deemed necessary 'by any member of Parliament, the resolution itself may be voted upon, suggestions may be made as to amending our report, the report itself may be rejected and should it be deemed [DOT] advisable, the House may recommit the report to the committee in order that it may consider any other phase of this question or any decision that has been reached, in any way that Parliament thinks fit.

As regards the committee itself, there was no inclination upon the part of any member to shirk his responsibility. All the

members of the committee approached the problem which we had under consideration,

I think I may say, earnestly, sincerely and fearlessly. They had but one end in view, and that was to get at the facts as far as it was humanly possible to do so; to place their views before Parliament; to give to Parliament the results of all their deliberations and considerations, and to leave to Parliament itself the ultimate decision as to what should be done in connection with the various suggestions that came to us regarding the problem of the re-establishment of the returned soldier in civil life.

The Government itself is not without re sponsibility; it has in connection with this certain responsibilities which it must assume, and it cannot shirk those responsibilities. Before we are through with this discussion, the Government, as a government, must state to Parliament very distinctly and clearly what its position is in reference to the matters of policy which will1, be under consideration. The Government must do that, and it must take the responsibility for any decision which it may reach.

As regards what may be considered as the main finding of the committee, that is that there should be no further general distribution of grants or gratuities, the Government has come to a very definite conclusion, and that is: that it does not agree to any proposal that there should be a further general distribution of grants or gratuities. If the majority of the members of this House think otherwise, if it is the view of this Parliament that there should be a further general distribution of grants or gratuities to all of the ex-members of the forces, then there i3 but one thing for Parliament to do, and that is to say so very clearly and plainly. And if Parliament comes to that conclusion, then there is only one course, and that is that some other administration must carry on.

I am not saying that as a threat; I am not saying it to influence any member in this House or to affect his vote in the slightest degree. This is an important question of policy upon which the Government has had to come to a conclusion. If the majority of the members of the House think that that position is not right, there is but one course to follow and that is to have placed in power an Administration that will carry out the will of Parliament in that regard. I wish to make that perfectly clear in order that there shall be no misund e rstanding.

In speaking to the motion I shall endeavour to speak clearly and plainly. I do-

not wish to sidestep in any way or to camouflage the issue. As chairman of the committee, I consider it my duty to place the problem fairly and squarely before Parliament in order that Parliament may be in a position to reach whatever decision is in its judgment the proper one in connection with the problems, we have under consideration. Although I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible, I am afraid that on account of the character and complexity of the problem and the mass of evidence we took my statement will be a somewhat lengthy one, and I must therefore ask the House to be indulgent while I explain the situation as concisely as possible.

With regard to the reference to the committee, only a word need be said. It will be found on page 3 of the report. One of the first things the committee had to decide was whether the reference was wide enough to enable us to consider any and all suggestions that came to us with regard to the problem of re-establishment. Finally, the committee came to the conclusion that the reference was sufficiently wide for that purpose, and as a result we stood ready and prepared at all times to receive any suggestions from any quarter that would enable us to deal intelligently with the problem of the re-establishment of the soldier in civil life. Regardless of the actual wording of the' reference, I am certain the House will agree that the committee came to the proper conclusion in that regard. If there had been any attempt at blocking evidence or shutting out suggestions of any kind, I think it would have been most unfortunate. I am certain that Parliament will agree that we did the proper thing in widening the inquiry in order that any returned man, any association or organization throughout the country, and any member of Parliament could appear before the committee and place before it any suggestions they desired to make in connection with the problem under consideration. [DOT]

Just a word with regard to the work of the committee. It was anticipated that Parliament would have prorogued some two or three weeks ago. Consequently we felt it was our duty to have the inquiry completed in good time without, however, shutting out any evidence or suggestions from any quarter, in order that Parliament would have ample time to discuss the report. For that reason, in the early stages of the inquiry the committee sat practically continuously, morning, afternoon and night. We had in all something like fifty sessions and we even were obliged to sit on the Sabbath 1 *

once or twice in order to get our work completed. About seventy witnesses were called, and the printed evidence comprises something like a thousand pages. We had a stream of telegrams, petitions, resolutions and letters from all over the country, all of which had to be considered and dealt with by the committee. From what I have been told, I doubt very much if there has been any Parliamentary committee in recent years that has had such a volume of work thrown upon it in such a short time. I mention this mainly for the purpose of thanking, as chairman, the members of the committee who attended so regularly and gave their very best attention to the work. All the members of the committee were in constant attendance, and I think all who followed our proceedings will agree that ou-work was carried on harmoniously and without any friction.

As to the report itself, it was deemed advisable to arrange it in convenient form for Parliament. It will be found to contain eleven parts, and an appendix containing four parts. These various parts have their headings and subheadings, and the paragraphs have been numbered for easy reference. The first ten parts of the report set out in detail the problems that confront the committee. They indicate the scope and character of the inquiry, and include the facts upon which the findings of the committee were based. All of our recommendations and the findings will be found in Part XI. As to the appendix, the first part sets out just as it was presented to the committee the general plan of re-establishment submitted to us by a committee representing the Great War Veterans' Association. The second part contains the financial statements submitted to the committee by the Deputy Minister of Finance and Mr. Breadner, Chief Commissioner of Taxation of the Finance Department. The third part contains two very interesting documents. We finally found it necessary to write officially to the Minister of Finance asking him to place before us definitely and clearly the financial commitments of the Government for the present year and the probable commitments for the next financial year. That will be found in Part III of the appendix. It was also deemed advisable by the committee to include in the appendix the evidence in toto given by Sir Thomas White, who acted as Minister of Finance during the entire war period.

I must ask the indulgence of the House while I run briefly through the first ten parts of the report. I do this because I take it for granted that all th; members of

the House have not probably read the report as closely as they may later, because it has only been available for a day or so and we have been very busy in this IJouse during the last twenty-four hours. Part I which contains the reference to the committee, I need not dwell upon. Part II, which gives a list of the witnesses called, and the various soldiers and organizations that appeared before us, and so forth, tells its own story.

The members of the House will find Part III exceedingly interesting because it endeavours to set forth briefly and concisely the work of re-establishment carried on in the past by the various departments of the Government.

I venture to s.ay that members of Parliament have very little conception of the work that has been done in the line of civil re-establishment during the past two or three years and of the cost of that work. At any tate, it was a revelation to many of the members of the committee. As I say, this part describes somewhat in detail the character and volume of that work, and I would commend to every member of the House this section of the report in order that he may make himself familiar with what has already been done and what is to be done.

Part IV describes at length the proposed post-war work of the Patriotic Fund, which was an organization created during the earlier stages of the war. It collected in various ways from the people of Canada sums of money aggregating in the neighbourhood of $48,000,000, and when the armistice came it had on hand somewhere about seven and a half million dollars. It will be remembered that at the last session of Parliament a Bill was introduced to amend the Patriotic Fund Act, in order that it might carry on certain classes of p>ost-war work, and in this section of the report will be found a description of the work proposed to be carried on by that body. That work is confined to assisting the families of the returned men; not-the soldiers themselves but their dependents. I shall not take up the time of the House now in any attempt to describe it, because it. is fully set out in this part of the report. The nature of the work to be carried on is indicated, as are also the various classes to be assisted, the conditions under which such assistance is to be given, and the amount, of assistance in each case.

Part V of the report is also very interesting, as it sums up all the suggestions that reached the committee in reference to

improvements in or extensions of work now being carried on by various departments of the Government. These suggestions have reference to the vocational work carried on by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, such as the treatment of men who have been discharged and who are in hospitals or other institutions under the care of that department, There were certain suggestions as to modifications or ^extensions in the provisions made in the past in regard to certain gratuities. Suggestions were made as to pay allowances by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, the question of giving free clothing to certain patients, and other details of that character.

Part VI will be found to contain another series of suggestions that reached the committee with reference to new benefits which the ex-soldiers do not now receive-new classes of work to be undertaken, such as making provision whereby returned men may receive loans or grants for housing, apart from the general provision that was made for housing last session by which loans were made to the provinces. There were also suggestions as regards life insurance, loans for one-man businesses, grants to university students, and in regard to new schemes that are not being undertaken by any of the departments at the present time.

Now we come to part VII, which is a very important section of the report. It will be found to contain three general schemes for re-establishment that reached the eommi'tr tee. Throughout our whole inquiry those who represented the, soldiers' organizations before us maintained that any policy adopted for re-establishment should he of such a character as to reach every member of the forces. I think I am stating the situation squarely and fairly. I am speaking now of the three general plans for re-establishment- that reached our committee, and I repeat that throughout our whole inquiry it was held that any plan that would not practically reach every one of the men would not be satisfactory.

May I ask my hon. friend if the plans submitted by the Great War Veterans did not, in addition to that, state very clearly, "in case of need, or actual need?"

Mr. CALDER:

What the hon, gentleman says is perfectly true.

Mr. McMASTER:

We could not hear the hon. member's question. Will the minister be kind enough to repeat it?

iTsa

Mr. CALDER :

The hon. gentleman's

point is that the Great War Veterans' representatives pointed out to the committee that their plan applied only to those who actually needed assistance. That is quite true. But during our examination we had the greatest difficulty in ascertaining what was meant by actual need, and when the matter was traced down to its finality, as it had to be traced, I think I am right in saying that practically every member of the committee agreed that actual need would not be very difficult to establish. Consequently the propositions as they came to us and as they were viewed by the committee were of such a character as to imply that any general proposals adopted by Parliament that would not reach practically every returned man would not be satisfactory to the men themselves. This was the view that was expressed. It was intimated that not a few but all of the men had suffered loss or hardship, either mental, physical, or financial, and that all should be reached if any attempt was to be made to re-establish the men in civil life. It was not a question of aiding the few. We received suggestions, for example, regarding university students, and it was also suggested that the mortgages which some men had on their places were a considerable burden which they should be assisted in lifting. We received suggestions to the effect that certain of the men had contracted debts which were also in the nature of a burden, and that assistance should be lent in this respect. Suggestions were made that pensions should be increased, and so on all along the line-various suggestions as to the form that re-establishment might take. But, I repeat, it was not represented to our committee that this, that, or the other suggestion should be carried out, but that they should all be adopted in order that the men might be properly re-established in civil life. It was held that the distribution of gratuities already provided for, which we ascertain now will total some $153,000,000, does not meet the requirements and that further grants or gratuities for all these various purposes are necessary and should be voted. It comes to this, Mr. Speaker, that those who represent the Soldiers' organizations in Canada, Mr. Waistell, who represented the G.W.V.A., Mr. Flynn who claimed to represent the large body of soldiers throughout Canada, both worked along practically the same lines although differing materially in detail. They endeavoured to devise plans whereby the State would approve of an arrangement for general cash grants or gratuities to all returned men. Their schemes varied, and they varied very radi-

cally in detail, but nevertheless they reached the same goal.

In so far as the G.W.V.A. proposal is concerned, the cost represents something in the neighbourhood of $400,000,000 while that of Mr. Flynn represents $1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars). Both are based upon the plan of a general distribution to all with the proviso that in the case of the G.W.V.A plan, actual need had to be established.

What was Mr. Flynn's proposal? He suggested that the state should raise the money and set aside sufficient to pay every man who had seen service in France $2,000; every man who had gone no farther than England $1,500 and every man whose service was in Canada, regardless of the length o,f that service, $1,000. Under this suggestion, if a man came into the force a day, or two days, or a month, before the armistice he was entitled to $1,000 while men who had seen service in Canada for two, three, or four years, would be entitled to the same amount, $1,000. Under Mr. Flynn's plan no regard was to be paid to the length of the service but only to the place of service. A man who went to France in 1914 and returned the same year, and a man who went to France in 1915 and returned the same year would be entitled to $2,000; whereas, if a man went there in ,1914 and stayed until the end of the war, he would also be entitled to only $2,000 and so on. I need not go over the details; the members of the House followed the proposal made and generally understand the details of it.

Mr. Flynn, in his evidence, admitted, I think, fairly and frankly, that if his scheme were carried out it would contain many discrepancies and inequalities. About the only reply he could give was that the men had considered the whole thing, that they had discussed all these details, that they had realized that these inequalities existed but that they wanted this plan adopted and that therefore it should be adopted regardless of any inequalities or discrepancies in that connection.

According to Mr. Flynn's evidence, the cost of carrying out his proposal would be between $500,000,000 and $600,000,000. Mr. Cox, one of the officials of the Department of Militia and Defence who has had a great deal to do with the payment of existing gratuities was called on to give evidence and he estimated that if Mr. Flynn's proposal was carried out it would cost the country over $1,000,000,000 and that the

annual interest charge thereon would be somewhere in the neighbourhood oi $55,000,000.

Under his proposal Mr. Flynn suggested that the men should be handed the money; that they should be permitted to do as they pleased with it and that there should be no attempt at control in any way. He further suggested that all classes of work now being carried on by the Government should be abandoned, that the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, which has been responsible for taking care of the disabled soldiers, should cease its operations. He also suggested that the Soldiers' Settlement Board should stop its work. He took the ground that in order to deal with all the men on an equality in so far as these matters were concerned the best and the most equitable way was on a basis of a cash grant, on' the understanding that that settled it and that the country should wash its hands of any further responsibility.

I think I have stated his views generally, correctly to the House.

In reference to the G. W. V. A. plan, in many important details it differed from that proposed by Mr. Flynn. In the first place, they would not disturb the work that is now being carried on. They would improve it; they would extend it; they criticise certain features of it but they would not abolish it. In the second place, they suggest that after it is ascertained what amount each man is entitled to, he should not be permitted to get more than $500 in cash. They claim that he should be paid $500 now if he is entitled to it, because of actual need and on account of present necessities. They take the ground that in so far as the balance is concerned, the Government should create a board with branches in the various provinces to see that the balance would go for some form of re-establishment, by which they meant some housing scheme or' some business the man wanted to go into, to care for any mortgage that is on his place, to buy tools and equipment, to look after life insurance, or any of the other forms of assistance that would be desirable, including any payment that he might want to make upon any lands secured from the Soldiers' Settlement Board. * In that respect their plan differs very materially from that presented by Mr. Flynn. The basis of the plan submitted by the representatives of the G. W. V. A. is this: They take the ground that * the basis for any grant or financial assistance to which any man should be entitled should he his place of service and^ the time

of enlistment, and that there should be taken into consideration as well the fact as to whether he was a combatant or not.

Mr. BURNHAM:

At page 56 of the report in regard to the G. W. V. A. proposal it is stated:

Your Committee feels that while these proposals were conceived with the very best ot intentions the practical working out of the same would result in many grave discrepancies and inequalities that would give rise sooner or later to further demands to remedy same.

If the Government were guaranted by the G. W. V. A. against further demands to remedy the same would the Government consider that .the G. W. V. A. proposal to which this paragraph refers would be acceptable?

Mr. CALDER:

I doubt very much if the G.W.V.A. could give any guarantee of that kind. The point is this: You and I have served; you have served under certain conditions for a certain length of time and in a certain place; under the scheme proposed you get a certain grant, certain gratuity, certain financial assistance; I do not get the same; my service, from my point of view, may have been just as valuable as yours; any decision that you, or those associated with you, may come to in so far as my case is concerned will never be satisfactory to me, and I am going to continue the demand that I be treated fairly, properly and justly in comparison with all others. I am sure the hon. gentleman gets my point. Their plan-I am speaking of the plan of the G.W.V.A.-differs from Mr . Flynn's plan in this<-that it would not provide any financial assistance for any man who has served in Canada for a period less than six months. Now, as an illustration of the working out of this plan, I would like to direct the attention of-the House to page 57, paragraphs (c) and (d), of the committee's report, and I think it would be just as well to read these paragraphs in full, because it illustrates the point raised by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burnham). These are the paragraphs:

(c) As an illustration of the working out of the proposed plan and as an indication of one of the principles upon which it is based, provision is made whereby all men who saw service in France in any particular year-

Not length of service, be it noted-

-would be entitled to the same financial assistance or grant regardless of the length of their subsequent service or the date upon which they returned to Canada. To put the proposal concretely : three men joined the forces in 1914; one is retained in Canada during the whole period of the war on necessary military duty;-

We had to carry on at home as well as overseas. A certain establishment was required here. It has been represented to me, for example, that at Halifax some hundreds of men were retained on necessary military duty, forced to go down there, probably against their will. They simply had to stay there and do whatever duty was cast upon their shoulders. To come back now to the quotation:

-the two others proceed to England in 1914; one of these reaches France in 1914; the other in 1915; the one sent to France in 1914 returns to Canada in 1915 and is discharged ; the other who went to Prance remains there to. the end -of the war.

That is, during the years 1915, 1916, 1917 ' and 1918:

Under the proposal made, the man who remained in Canada on service during the whole period of the war would he entitled to $375 ; the man who saw service in France, returned to Canada and was discharged in 1915, would he entitled to $2,500, and the man who reached France in 1915 and saw service to the end of the war would be entitled to $2,300.

The claim is put forward that because a man saw service in France in the year 1914 he should get $2,500, if he only served during that year-that he needs it, he actually needs it for re-establishment work-whereas the other man who went to France in 1915 and remained during the whole balance of the war and came back in 1919 should only be entitled to $2,300. Or, take the case of a man in Canada-a man who may have enlisted, we v.ill say, somewhere in Western Canada-who was brought into the force under military control, and had to go away- he was ordered to go, we will say, to Halifax -away from his home, away from his family, and stayed there during the whole period of the war. That man would only be entitled to $375. Well, I say again, that while the Great War Veterans' Association, or the officers of the Great "War Veterans' Association might be prepared to make a statement to the effect that if their plan were carried out they would guarantee that there would be no further demand, I am quits sure the House will see that every man who considers he is unjustly or unfairly treated in a matter of this kind is not going to let the question rest notwithstanding the guarantee that might be given by any body. Just so long as he considers he has been unfairly, inequitably and unjustly dealt with, in comparison with his companion, he is going to continue to demand from the Government fair treatment-just as good treatment as any other man has received.

Mr. H. A. MACKIE:

Might I ask if the plan the minister is now criticising wasrilr. Colder.]

turned down for the reason mentioned, or was it because of any other reason?

Mr. CALDER:

The fact that these inequalities existed and that this discrimination appeared is only an incident. I will come to the question which the hon. gentleman raises just in a moment. Now the estimated cost of the plan submitted to us by the committee representing the Great War Veterans' Association will be found on page 74:

Summary of Costs-(Estimate)

I will not read it all. Hon. gentlemen will notice that the actual gross amount of cost is placed at $397,800,000, and then there are three foot-notes:

1. From the above, it is reasonable to as sume that a percentage will be unclaimed, or the need of re-estaiblishment be not proven, amounting to 25 per cent.

That is, they assume to take off $100,000,000 from their estimates of cost. They say it is reasonable to assume that a certain percentage will not be claimed, and that in other cases the need of re-establishment will not be proven. Well, our commitee was very careful to endeavour to trace that down, to endeavour to follow' it out right to its ultimate end, and I am sure that the members of the committee, at any rate, will agree with me when I say that those who were on the committee representing the Great War Veterans' Association did not convince us that there would be any material saving on this account because of not being able to establish need. Then a further amount is deducted in the second note:

2. Also, that Government Departments, such as Land Settlement, Insurance, and Victory Bonds, will absorb the financial aid amounting to a further 25 per cent.

Apparently an endeavour is made to lead us to believe that the amount required would be the balance, namely, $200,000,000. Well, any money that is to be raised and given by way of financial assistance for the purpose ot enabling the men to make payments under the Soldiers' Settlement Board, does not relieve the situation in the slightest degree.

On the other hand, if bonds instead of cash were handed over to the men, with the right on their part to dispose .of them, even with the Government's approval, that also would not relieve the situation in the slightest degree. Consequently, after the whole ground had been gone over very fully and very carefully it was generally conceded that the amount that would be required to carry out the proposals submitted to us by the

committee representing the Great War Veterans' Association would be approximately $400,000,000, to say nothing of a discrepancy in the evidence with reference to the number of men who saw service in France, in connection with which a further expenditure of some forty or fifty millions might be entailed.

In one respect the proposal submitted to us by the G.W.V.A. goes further than Mr. Flynn's plan. For example, Mr. Flynn proposed that a man who saw service in France at any time should not receive more than $2,000, whereas under the plan submitted to us by the G.W.V.A. the proposal is that a man who saw service in France in 1914 should receive $2,500 over and above the gratuity which he has already received. In other words, if he had received $600 by way of gratuity'under the plan now in force, the total amount that he would be entitled to would be $2,500 plus the $600 already received. If a man enlisted in 1914 and went to England in 1915 he would be entitled to $500 for his service in Canada and $800 for having reached England in that year, and if he saw service in France the same year he would be entitled to a further $800, a total of $2,100 as against the $2,000 proposed by Mr. Flynn.

I do not think it is necessary for me to go further into the proposals made by the committee representing the G.W.V.A. Those proposals are contained in full in the appendix, just as they were presented to us, and if all members of the House have not read them I suggest that they should do so, because it is important that we should clearly understand the proposals as they actually reached the committee from the men themselves.

Then, a third general scheme was submitted to us by Mr. Margeson, not as representing any body, but simply as his own suggestion. He is one of the Pension Commissioners, and he has given a good deal of time, thought and consideration- to this subject. In brief, the suggestion which he made to the committee was that every man who saw .service should be given a per diem allowance for his service. If he reached France the allowance for his total services should be seventy cents a day. If he reached only England, he should get forty cents for every day that he was in the army, and if he did not leave Canada, twenty cents a day. There was this proviso, however: no man should be entitled to more than $1,500, including the gratuities already granted. Mr. Margeson's plan

would entail an expenditure of some

Now, I have run over Part VII of the report, which contains these three plans, and have indicated generally to the House what the schemes were.

Mr. FRIPP:

Why did the committee not recommend the Margeson plan? Was the reason for its rejection the same as that which applied to the other plans?

Mr. CALDER:

We shall oome to the

findings very shortly and then I shall have a statement to make with regard to that.

Part VIII of the' report contains simply three suggestions that reached us. I need not take up the time of the House in referring to them at length.

As regards Part IX of the report, I ask that members turn to pages 34 and 35, as I think that we should get a clear view of what has been done in the way of expenditures in connection with the work of reestablishment. Paragraph 1 says:

The following is a summary taken from the evidence or from statements submitted -by the departments concerned of the expenditures made or to be made in connection with re-establishment work now carried on to the end of the present fiscal year.

First, there is the item of pensions paid on account of the European War. The evidence showed that up to the 31st of March last there had been expended $27,499,463.79, and that from that day down to the end of July of this year there had been expended a further sum of $6,537,034.95. It is estimated that there will he expended during the remainder of this fiscal year 4 p.m. $19,500,000. In other words, our total expenditures for -pensions on account of the European War from the beginning down to the end of the present-fiscal year will -be $53,536,498.74, and it is estimated that hereafter the annual expenditure for pensions will approximate $30,000,000. How long we shall have to make that annual expenditure we cannot say, but likely it will be for a very long tame.

As regards gratuities already provided for, to the end of the last fiscal year there had been paid, in round figures, twenty and one-half millions, and up to the end of August of this year, $83,000,000. It is estimated that a further sum of $50,000,000 will be required to take care of gratuities already provided for, making a total of $153,600,000 in round figures.

Mr. CURRIE:

Does that figure of $83,000,000 include the $20,500,000 above it? The

statement is not perfectly clear in that regard.

Mr. CALDER:

No, it does not include the figure printed above it. The second line of the statement is not very clear; it means that from the beginning of the present fiscal year down to the end of August, 383,000,000, in round figures, was paid. That explanation applies to the other tables as well.

It was estimated when these gratuities were first provided for that it would take in the neighbourhood of 3125,000,000 to cover them. That estimate has now grown to 3153,000,000, and from the evidence submitted to the committee the House may take it for granted that it will not be less than 3150,000,000 and that it may be two or three millions in excess of the 3153,000,000 estimated here.