Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister):

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

Mr. F. N. McCREA (Sherbrooke):

Before the Orders of the Day are called, may I ask

the Government if it is their intention to provide boxing gloves for the members of this House? The members are so fed up with the session that they evidently require some exercise.

Order, order.

Mr. McCREA:

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

Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words at this juncture in respect to the matter before the House, and my difficulty is in collecting my thoughts so as to avoid vain repetitions. The subject has been so well put before the House by the committee, with such clearness and in such detail, that really almost all that is necessary to arrive at a proper conclusion is that a member should study that report. But in addition to the report itself, the exhaustive and lucid exposition which was made by the chairman of the committee (Hon. Mr. Calder) renders any remarks thereafter all the less necessary. And when you put on top of that the suggestions that have been made by the various speakers, one comes to the conclusion that pretty nearly all has been said that can be said on this particular phase of the question.

There are one or two general observations I should like to make. Every one finds it a difficult matter in approaching any subject, and particularly a large and important subject, to disassociate himself from his previous point of view and to take as far as possible an all-round view - of the subject. We think along certain lines and our mental attitudes are fairly well set, and we approach the study and discussion of almost any question from that settled angle; and the one who can almost entirely disassociate himself from pre-conceived notions is, other things being equal, apt to get at the broadest conception of the question and come

to the best-based conclusions. There is one point that might be mentioned and that is acceded to by almost every speaker, but yet the principle underlying which is clung very closely to by many hon. gentlemen and probably by many of those outside of the House who are interested. No nation in the world has ever undertaken, and I do not suppose that any nation in the world ever will or ever can undertake, to make compensation for the losses incurred in war, it would be an impossible task. There is no measure of worldly compensation for life that is lost in the service of the nation but partial compensation to the dependents of the dead may be given, nor do I believe that any nation can compensate for even the material losses which accrue to individuals in the course of a long and cruel war. We are all at one on that principle. I can see in the statements made by those who discuss the question, I can see in the claims made by the returned soldiers themselves, that they hold the belief that, having engaged in the splendid achievement of defending the country, somehow or other the country ought to see that they start life again on as favourable a basis and with as favourable surroundings as when they left their civil employment plus if possible compensation for the time that they lost in military life. We will, I think, all agree that it will be impossible practically for us to undertake to put every man in 'the material position in which he was at the time he went to war. Complete restitution and compensation are impossible.

Then there comes this question as to how far we can or will go and that perhaps may be said to be measured by two things: first, the will to do and, second, the ability to perform what the will would impel one to do.

Just here let me remark that, whether inside or outside of this House, the man who would try to create the impression that Canada has not been and is not now sympathetic towards her soldiers is not doing justice and is not helping to the final solution of this question. In proportion as outside or inside grows the impression that sympathy is lacking and that the accordant action that follows sympathy is not present, it is a hindrance to the future amicable and fair solution of the problem.

In coming to the consideration of this subject all our predispositions are in favour of doing everything possible for the men who have defended our country. That is absolutely true. That was shown to be

true during the whole period of enlistment and service. In no country in the world did the people follow with more earnest sympathy, interest, and love the men who went to battle than did the people of Canada. They were their own fathers, 'brothers, husbands, sons; there was a drawing of the heart strings of the men and women who were left behind. All through the war that sympathy showed itself in the prayers of the people, in the comforts that the people contributed, in the great Red Cross movement, in the Patriotic Fund, in those innumerable smaller congregations of women, children and men all through, our country who laboured for, and followed with their prayers the men who went to the front. Can that be denied? There was a great national foundation not only for doing for the soldiers everything that could he done during service in the field, for the wounded, for the fallen, for the disabled, to solace the relatives of those who had fallen and to fittingly honour the memory of the dead.

The man who accuses Canada-leave the Government out entirely-of a lack of sympathy and good-will towards our soldiers, their own flesh and blood, is either arguing from ignorance, or from malice.

Translated into this Parliament were the sympathy and good-will that followed the soldiers during the time of war. And where do the members of the House come from? They come out of the societies and homes of this country, from amongst those who have offered sacrifice in this war. Coming out of that atmosphere they brought with them to this House their sympathy for the Canadian soldier. The committee that was appointed was a selected portion of the men of this House from both sides. It was not necessary to engraft sympathy and good-will into the hearts and minds of that committee. They inherently bore it in them when they approached that investigation, and they came to consider the subject with all that sympathy of heart and mind.

Some one said that the human element does not appear sufficiently in the report. The human element is so interwoven in, and so overwhelms the mind, the sympathy and the feeling of the members of [DOT] this House, of the select committee, and of the people, that it is not necessary to make asseverations of it every hour of the day. That is beyond cavil and doubt, and in that committee all the predispositions were in favour of doing the best that could be done for the soldiers.

I make these preliminary remarks because I think it is well that I should. I come to another point and very briefly I will touch it-and that is as to what Canada has done. I eliminate entirely party names and governmental considerations; I am not saying what the Government has done, I am not saying what the Unionists have done, I am not saying what the Liberals have done; I am saying what Canada has done. And the 'Government, and the members of this Parliament, are presumably the interpreters of Canada's wishes and efforts. What has Canada done? Not in any spirit of vaunting do I speak of it; I speak of it to meet this impression which it has been attempted to create; that Canada has forgotten her soldiers and her duty towards them, and that she is not treating them with the sympathy and with the accordant action that they expect and that they ought to expect.

When a member gets up in this House and says that the requests of the returned soldiers have been greeted with coldness here, not to mention statements stronger than that, he is not, to my mind, stating what is the fact. Every member of this House ought to remember, when he gets upon his feet and speaks here, that he has been translated from the mass, he has been placed in a representative capacity, he stands towards the people outside, more than the man who is not so selected, as one who speaks with authority. His responsibility therefore is all the greater, and his care should be all the greater that he utters no word which creates a false impression,' and especially an impression which hazards and complicates the adjustment and makes the ultimate solution more difficult.

So, for a moment, bear with me while I state very briefly what Canada has done. In the first place, she has stood at the back of her men when they were in service. I just state that-I do not* argue it, I do not labour for evidence to prove it. We have followed the course of our soldiers and we know, and we have followed what the armies of other countries have done. The representatives of other countries, have followed our armies in the field; they know and they have expressed their opinion; and it goes without saying, I do not think it is subject to the least cavil, that in all that long period of warfare no soldiers in the field were better supported by the countries which were responsible for them-as regards equipment, as regards medical care, as regards nursing care, and as regards material comforts of every kind- than was the Canadian army supported by the Canadian people. So much for that. That is the duty of the country, and that duty Canada performed.

The second duty of a country when her men fight and fall-fall without life left or fall wounded and disabled-is to care tenderly for these men, Has Canada done her duty in that respect? Follow the splendid work of our medical, scientific and nursing staffs through that war. Contrast it, if you like, with the similar work performed for the soldier by other combatant nations, and without detracting from what others have done, we are proudly conscious of the fact that our wounded, our suffering, and our disabled did not lack for medical and nursing comforts and care to the fullest possible extent.

Then come two lines in which action may be taken. Your disabled men come

back. One has lost a leg, another has lost an arm, another has had his brain power impaired-his nerve centres are shocked, and confused, and disturbed. These men are the wrecks of war; they are the survivors who are to put in tnc span.of life that remains to them reaping sorrows and sufferings which the fallen have escaped by a sudden and a speedy death. These disabled, these shocked in nerve and in mind, the country must take care df to the fullest measure within its power. Has Canada done her fair duty in that respect? That is not a subject of controversy; it is a matter in regard to which we have all made up our minds. Granted that you never get the perfection of service and the perfection of aid, no blush should mantle Canada's cheek for the way in which she has treated the disabled who have been put into their different courses of vocational training, and other modes of treatment. We have not done all that Canada means to do. We know that Canadians support any government or any parliament that does for the soldier all that can be done to the very limit of the resources of the country. There is no doubt upon that score.

You now come to the other and the only remaining class: The men who left their homes and fought in service, and1 who were fortunate enough to come out of that service undisabled. Should Canada do nothing for them? I do not say so. Should Canada do as much as she possibly can for them?. I do say so. But I say there is a dividing line, clean, clear, and distinct between the one hundred per cent capa-

bility that is left and the handicapped condition of the wounded1 and the maimed. We make no mistake when we father and mother and nurse those who are impaired in mind and body. It comes to be a matter of utility, of expediency, maybe, to some extent-although I do not like that word-but in the end it comes to be a matter of the reasonable capability of the country as to how far the country shall put itself behind those that have fought in the war and made sacrifices? Why, of course they have made sacrifices and borne the strain of a terrible struggle, the result of which to a greater or lesser degree they will bear the result of so long as they live. But they are so fortunate, as compared with others, that they are in a class distinct by themselves. What has Canada done with reference to that class becomes apparent as one reads the report of this committee and as one follows the work that has been carried on. I am not going to take up your time describing what the country has done, but I do say that Canada has not been unmindful even of those. Let me state one fact by way of suming it up: $490,500,000 has already been disbursed, or committed for disbursement, by Canada along the lines that I have very briefly traced. That is to isay for the treatment of the first three classes-their vocational training and their care in assuming the cost of transport for dependents and otherwise, and in the payment of gratuities which no other country in the world has surpassed, and which I do not think any other country in the world has equalled. All this stands to the credit of Canada in her treatment of her returned men.

Canada works through her Parliament, Parliament works through its executive, and Parliament and its executive disbursed for Canada this great sum of $491,500,000 which the Canadian people put into their hands. My friend beside me does not dig down in his own pocket and necessarily contribute voluntarily to the $491,500,000, neither does any other man; it is raised from the people of Canada. And, further, the people of Canada voluntarily themselves have raised around $100,000,000 outside of what has been disbursed by their representatives here and by the executive of those representatives1-$100,000,000 for Bed Cross work, for the Patriotic Fund, to help soldiers in the innumerable ways in which they have been helped. You may add that amount, if you please, to the preceding figure, and Canada has then dis-

bursed practically $591,500,000 along those lines. I do not throw that into the teeth of the soldier who returns with his claim, but I simply put that point of view before him and before ourselves, and as widely as possible before the country, in order that well-balanced opinions, and conclusions from those opinions, may be had. All that is a rebuff to the statement so foolishly and sometimes so recklessly made that Canada has done comparatively nothing for her soldiers. She has not done one tithe of what she would have liked to do, she has not done one tithe of what the sacrifice, if we could undertake to make full compensation, has called for; but she has done what she has done with a willing and a sympathetic and a loving spirit, and I want the people of Canada who do not think deeply about these things to bear these points in mind'when we are discussing this question.

Now, that committee has made its report; and its report, I may say right here, in so far as the Government is concerned, is a report with which the Government is entirely in accord and purposes to adopt and to carry out. Do not run away with the idea that the Government of Canada-for the time being this Government, at other times it may be another Government belonging to another party-spends its days and its nights in times like these in riotous living and in an entire disregard of the general or the special interests of the country. Men who have formed governments and have laboured in them and have wrecked themselves in the labour, and have died for the reason that they have so- wrecked themselves, know what I mean when I make that statement. Long before you memJbers of Parliament set your special attention to this particular problem the Government lived with it in the daytime and slept with it in the night-time. It was ever present before them, and present before them with the endeavour to find that solution which should be just on the one hand and reasonably possible to give effect to on the other hand. Our soldiers form-I had almost made the mistake of saying one class of our people, 'but there are other classes and so I would like to modify that-our soldiers, by the .emergency and temporary work which they are called upon to do become to a certain extent specialized, but they are still citizens of Canada. They aTe now civilian citizens of Canada; they have never divorced themselves: from the country and its activities, its energies and its aspirations; they are not so separated now. They

come hack from their temporary work of splendid achievement, and the desire-of all of them I should hope, of most of them I believe-is to incorporate themselves as soon as possible in the activities and energies of the surroundings that they belonged to before they went to the war. The sooner that is accomplished the better. The time taken in keeping the specialized contingents still specialized and distinct in any degree is time lost in the best fulfilment of the ultimate pacifying and readjustment and reconstruction of our country. The sooner we all become civilian citizens, the better it will be and the more successful will be our progress towards the future which we face with confidence.

That committee brings in its report. It does not go 'as far as some people would like. Why did I make the remark that the Government had thought about this matter long and seriously? For this reason, and I will explain that part of the allusion just now: because, in the first place, the Government was forced by its duties and obligations to cheerfully undertake to look into this matter of finance to the very foundation and guide its policy from two considerations: the magnitude of the wants and the reasonable possibilities of what the country could bear. Looking along these lines, face to face with the facts on one side, with the claims on the other, some months ago, the Government came to the conclusion that in so far as the gratuity granting system was .concerned, they could not proceed further along those lines. And they made public, that view- a view oome to not on the spur of the moment, but after the most careful and the most assiduous attention had been given to all sides of the question. They stated their policy openly, and the country knows it. Then we formed a committee, of the House and that committee took up the investigation of these subjects. I am not in the habit of complimenting fulsomely, but I must say that I have seldom if ever in my political career had cognizance of the work of a committee which has been done more carefully and more attentively, and which has been more effectively presented to those who gave the committee the authority to make the investigation. That committee had access to evidence and which is still more important evidence had access to the committee. No doors were closed, no gates were shut, the whole Dominion had its access to that committee. That committee deliberated, got its information, collaborated its work, set down its conclusions, and made its findings.

We may send this report hack if the majority decide so to do, but I cannot see that you can get more out of that committee than you have already got. I cannot see that that committee missed any opportunities for getting at the bottom of this subject during the time that they were considering and cogitating upon the matter. So that it seems to me that it is time lost to send this report back to that committee and ask them, partly by instruction and partly by inference, to give us another and a different report.

My friend and colleague, the chairman of this committee (Hon. Mr. Calder), very pointedly and very effectively stated what would be the result of adopting the proposed amendment. My friend from, the head of the lakes (Mr. Manion), in an address that he made yesterday, very clearly stated the crowning disability involved in carrying out that recommendation and starting the committee off on an entirely new quest, or in an entirely new direction. Time is the essence of the contract in this case; what is wanted is wanted now, before the snow falls, at a time when the need is felt. It is not sufficient that whatever is ground out shall come from the mill six months or more from now.. So that on these two ground's I cannot see that anything is to be gained by sending this report hack to the committee.

Now, during the progress of this debate we have looked for suggestions. The committee, I am sure, has been interested in learning what alternative plans are offered which axe practical and reasonable, if their findings do not coincide with the convictions of hon. members. I am sure that every member of the committee has had that thought in his mind, and it must be a thought which is in the minds of all hon. members of this House of Commons. I have listened to the suggestions and 1 have tried to weigh them, but I cannot find very much of comfort or assistance in them. That is not depreciatory of the gentleman who made the suggestions. But I have noticed two things: That the suggestions have been, in the main, the expression of the wishes and sympathies of those who offered them rather than a venturing upon concrete methods of adding to or substituting for the financial side of the report of the committee in order to raise the amounts suggested, lit surely is not necessary for me to take up the time of the House in going over these. But, with your pencil sharply pointed, just note down what you can get in cold dollar comfort out of these suggestions-what you can get now or within

a reasonably short period, and I am sure that your total at the end will be a mighty small amount. Some have tried to extract sunbeams from cucumbers by saying that it makes the problem easier of solution when a commitment of, say, $700,000,000 is to be expended on capital account. But the trouble is not the expending; the trouble is to get the money to spend. It does not make a pin's difference whether it is expended on capital account or on any other account; you must have the money before you can expend it. So that that suggestion, if it is intended to solve or to clarify, does' not have that effect upon me. Does it have that effect upon any member of this House? You are quite as sensible as I am, and I am sure that my experience is your experience.

Hon. gentlemen say, establish lotteries; but you cannot do that in this country. Tax your bachelors, and you would soon have no bachelors to tax if your tax was heavy enough; even my distinguished friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) would be among the missing. Clap a little additional tax on your theatre seats, and still where are you? Run through all these suggestions, and when you have totalled them all up and subtracted the expense of collection, what a mighty small amount you would have to go against a $400,000,000 expenditure.

Well, then, come to the more ambitious schemes, the land tax and the unearned increment. There is a nice bridge built on the Plaza. You can get on one end of that bridge and in two minutes you can cross over to the other side. Where is your bridge that will take yon to-day, this month or next month, when you want the money, to the place where you can find a settlement of the questions involved in this suggestion: First, whether the unearned increment or land tax is a proper tax; second, the institution of investigations to provide that no one shall escape you; third, the getting of a proper line of agreement and co-operation with municipal and provincial authorities, which also have that power of taxation; fourth, the institution of the necessary machinery, and fifth, the gathering of the amount. You have all these processes -before you; set them going and you then have no bridge built that will carry you over for one year, two years, may be three years. That is the first class of suggestion, there is comparatively nothing in it.

The second class of suggestion calls for the discussion of methods and of principles

and the adoption by a majority of the House of one or of the other; then come the valuations, the providing of machinery and the collection of the tax. Why, your disabled or other soldiers, in dire need today, would die and pass away before you could build that bridge or cross it to the other side. So that there is not much help for us in that respect.

" Oh, well," another friend says, " Canada is a rich country. She has billions of tons of coal; she has untold resources in nickel; she has mighty forests, great fisheries, and -mines which have not yet been plumbed. True, she has great resources. These resources give us hope, inspire in us confidence that we can bear our burdens and come out on top, confidence that in future years we shall, by the proper development of these resources, be able to meet our obligations, pay -off our liabilities and come out on the high road to unobstructed -progress, but you cannot commute those billions of lignite ore in the West and in the mountains into ready cash for present payment-. These are our resources, but they cannot be converted immediately into money. Processes extending over years have to be carefully thought out and carefully applied before you get the beginning of returns. So we do- -not get much help from the fact that our natural resources are very great, except the hope and confidence it gives that we have a well assured future before us if we use ourselves and onr resources properly.

To make a long story short, we come right down against the actualities oif the -case. We have had two Victory Loans in this country, splendidly launched and more splendidly sustained. We are now in the midst of a third loan, which is going beautifully and will bring us our objective -and more, I am well assured. Now a loan of $500,000,000 or $600,000,000 takes just that much of the moneys of the people out of -certain lines in which it was active before, and applies it to a different purpose; your second- loan adds another $500,000,000, $600,000,000, or $700,000,000 to that, and your third loan, now on, will make another large draft upon the resources of the country. All we need to keep in mind is that within eighteen months we have to raise in round figures between $800,000,000 and $900,000,000 of hard cash to pay our bills and meet obligations already contracted, not a single -item of which the House, after scrutiny, has so far said should be eliminated or -even materially reduced. Our present loan will raise $400,000,000, perhaps $500,000,000,

but t-ha't still leaves another $400,000,000 or $500,000,000 that must be raised within a very short time. These are the if acts that *confront us, and what the Government had to consider when it went into this matter, and what the committee, too, I have no doubt, considered, was the ability of the country to raise and sustain these loans which are absolutely necessary to meet our already undertaken obligations, and follow them by others equally necessary within a few months. Could we fairly with reference to those needs and the capabilities all round incur the further responsibility involved in the propositions placed before the committee and before the Government? Some may -say-I have heard it myself from these benches: You can spend money on the railways; what is the reason you -cannot give 'this to the -soldiers; you can spend money for shipbuilding and transport; what is the reason you cannot give this to the soldiers? Well, as I said before the soldiers are a part of the -Canadian nome and Canadian country, and if the Canadian home and the Canadian country is to be kept functioning, the expenditures I have mentioned are absolutely necessary. I hey are the hands and the fingers, the legs and the feet of the body politic of the nation, and unless you sustain them and put strength and power into them you cannot develop, you cannot produce, you cannot earn, and consequently you cannot continue to function, and the first man who would feel that disability would be the returned soldier himself. All of us would feel it. -So you cannc^J, say that if you are able to spend money to keep the railways going you might surely give $200,000,000 or $300,000,000 to this cause. We must remember that these expenditures are absolutely necessary to our arteries carrying the lifeblood of our country.

The chairman of the committee has been criticised in the House and outside because of his frankness. His frankness went this far: If we were up against little questions, the Government might hide behind the general issues and say nothing, and let people go ahead, but when you are up against what is vital to the country no Government is worth its salt which does not formulate its policy and formulate it upon the very best considerations and the very best investigation it is capable of giving. The Government was up against the problem before the House or the committee was, and it went into it thoroughly, and came to the conclusion that it could not embark on the venture of more cash grants. Was it better

or otherwise, was it dignified or undignified, was it proper or improper, was it constitutional or unconstitutional, that the Government, having come to that conclusion, and feeling its conclusion a conviction, should say to the members on both sides of the House: That is- the conclusion we have

come to, so when you are discussing this matter, you are discussing it with all the cards on the table. Is not that better for you, for the Government, and for the country? M stand behind my colleague (Hon. Mr. -Calder) in the fair disclosure he made of what is the Government's mind with reference to this matter. Now the House has the whole matter before it, and I do not think there is need for labouring it further. I have stated the position of the Government with reference to this report. I have stated the difficulties confronting us. I could go more into detail, but you are masters of detail yourselves.

I have only one thing more to say. This report of the committee is not one of the most hide-bound, wrapped up, and enveloped reports that I have seen come down to the House. There is an elasticity about it. Read the recommendations and findings of that committee and you will see that in many cases they did not tie themselves down to an absolute fixed minimum. There is an elasticity under the rules and regulations which may be adopted which allows more maybe than is brought down in the estimate that we have put before you, and which does not shut the door, especially to needy and necessitous cases. Neither does it shut the door on the undisabled man who for reasons that we do not know now, but which may become apparent, and may be thoroughly valid, finds himself with his family without employment, notwithstanding all he could do and has honestly done to get employment. The door is open to that case. It is not open to the man. who has settled himself and is getting along in settled civil life as he got along before, but it is open to the man who, unfortunate it may be, or from whatever cause is abso-. lutely in a position of necessity. The committee's report does not shut- the door upon aid of that kind.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have said all that I need to S-ay, and I am very much obliged to the House for the kind and careful attention with which i-t has listened to me.

Mr. D. L. REDMAN (Calgary East):

I am sure the whole House has listened with the very greatest interest to the excellent speech which h-as been deliverd- by the Acting

Prime Minister (Sir George Foster). His logic has been very clear, and if in what I say I differ from him in any degree I trust the House will believe me when I say that I do so with the greatest diffidence. However, from my long connection with soldiers generally, I must say that there are some parts of the report which 'in my opinion do not go far enough. Before I proceed further, I may say that I find myself unable to vote for the amendment which has beenJ submitted because that amendment means cash gratuities which the financial condition of the country,, and other urgent and important needs of some of the soldiers, make impossible at the present time. I attended, I think, almost every meeting of the committee at which evidence was taken, and I have carefully studied their report.

I have the greatest respect for the ability of the gentlemen who composed the committee, and I have no doubt whatever of their high motive and the frame of mind in which they approached their work. Still, as I say, with some of the conclusions which they have reached I cannot agree. I admit the need of the benefits which they recommend for soldiers in their report and to that extent I agree that they have done well. But I do not think they have gone far enough. One cannot help being impressed with the evidence that is set forth in regard *to the financial condition of the 'country, nor can one find any difficulty in supporting the contention that the country could not possibly raise at this time sums approximating $300,000,000 or $400,000,000 for cash gratuities. This important question after all resolves itself into a matter of common sense, and we must-be rational in our suggestions as to how far we can go and how much money we ear raise in order to meet the needs of the soldiers. Now, in my opinion, I think we can raise in addition to the amount already recommended in the report about $150,000,000. I do not say that sum could be raised in cash at the present moment to be distributed next month. Under the proposal which I have, that would not be required. 1 do not intend to enter into a discussion as to the exact means by which it might be raised. That amount is not very large compared with our ipresent and past loans, and I think we could carry it along under our present schemes by a readjustment of our finances. For instance, I think there is a sum of $25,000,000 in our present commitments which we might well divert from the purpose to which we have allocated it, namely,

the soldiers' settlement scheme, for establishing men of Imperial units on land in Canada. My opinion in this respect is that if we have that amount of money to spend we should spend it first in the interests of our Canadian soldiers. Another $25,000,000 has been allocated by the Government to housing, a scheme which has been taken advantage of by only three provinces. The province from which I come has not availed itself of it, and as I intend to advocate a housing scheme it seems to me that the balance of the vote might well be allocated to the purpose I shall mention. I believe that all the money given to soldiers who are not in the disabled or wounded class should be by way of loan, and as we should have under these various schemes very good security we can hope for a return of. a large part of the money so loaned with a certain rate of interest. So that these loans would not involve so serious a question as that of a straight gratuity, nor would it be necessary that the entire amount proposed should be raised immediately. I do not think I need argue that if we could raise a further sum of money for the soldiers there would be no desire or intention on the part of the House that it should not be raised and loaned, provided that every dollar loaned would tend to the re-establishment of the soldiers. It is not necessary, either, that I should endeavour to establish the fact that soldiers who have returned, even if they are physically fit, are not able to enter into competition on an equal basis with those who did not go to the front. ,

Now, a great deal has been said in regard to the word " need," and I think that the proposal put forward by the member for Centre Winnipeg largely hinges upon the interpretation of that word. The needs of the human being are varied, and they include necessaries other than those of a financial character. His financial needs wall vary with the individual, but if we are to discuss the question of need we must approach it from a different viewpoint. We must consider what needs we as a nation are prepared to supply. I think that if the returned, soldiers need housing and assistance in establising themselves in industry, or for education

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

sibly a sum of $75,000,000 or $100,000,000 might be raised towards this end. No one will dispute the fact that in. Canada there is a great shortage of housing accommodation as a result of the cessation ini building during the war, when the activities of the people were concentrated in the sole effort of successfully waging the fight. Why could we not allocate same such sum of money towards the building of homes for the soldiers? I do not say that we could build a home for every soldier, but we could survey the needs of the various provinces and allocate, to be spent in them, such proportion as appears necessary after a careful investigation of the situation. Let these houses be built, and we shall then have solved the housing problem and incidentally have helped a great many soldiers. Those soldiers whoi did not have .homes would be benefited under this scheme, with the result that the present utterly unreasonable rents which soldiers and their dependents have to pay would he reduced, and thus practically all the soldiers would derive a benefit, while the *civilian population would incidentally share in the .advantages of the scheme. I am confident that if this were done the housing situation and living conditions in Canada would be improved very materially. A home is an essential part of the equipment of the producer, and in furnishing houses to the soldiers we would help them to become more efficient and place them in a better position to produce to the maximum. The security would in this case be adequate and I think the country could look for the return of a very large part of this amount.

The question of industrial loans is a great deal more difficult. I do not think that any such sums should now, at least, be allocated to that purpose, but if by spending $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 we could help to place on their feet a lot of returned soldiers who wish to get into business of different sorts I think we should do so. Discussion has taken place as to assistance to those who wish to engage in such businesses as .fishermen, blacksmiths, garage men, and barbers, and for the purchase of tools of the different trades. It seems a reasonable proposition that we should help these men by giving them small loans to start in business and get on their feet again. The security, I admit, in that case would not be so good. Still, it would be considerable if all loans were carefully given out. It would add to the producing capacity of this country and would help to actually place some of our soldiers on their feet.

118 [DOT]

I believe, therefore, that we could, with safety, loan money to soldiers for housing and for re-establishing themselves in industry.

Then there is a third way in which I think we could safely assist them and that is by helping them in their educational courses. I believe that the committee should have agreed to the suggestion that aid should be given to university students. I know they were most sympathetic towards it and I know the reason they did not agree to it was that they thought that all other classes, or all other young men in the army . might object. I do not think that theory ia entirely sound. I think it is a fair statement to say that there is no aristocracy of brains, that there is no class, economic or social, from which students are drawn, and the very fact that assistance is needed by them would prove that they did not come from the higher financial stratas in this country. However, I do not see any Teason why we should not go further to the extent of helping those who enlisted before they were twenty-one in getting technical or vocational training. Surely this country needs educated-leaders in the future; surely we cannot afford not to counteract the results of that four or five years during Which the young men of this country were not being educated. There is an hiatus there which will react on this country in years to come. By loaning money to students we will be making a splendid investment for the country, we will be helping to bring forward leaders in industry and thought and I believe that the security or the hope of getting the money back from men who take a university training is excellent.

I have given three ways in which I think money could safely be loaned to soldiers. All these benefits can be substantiated on the ground that they are in the national interests. The land settlement scheme has been substantiated on that basis. The housing scheme is, one might say, the counterpart of the land settlement scheme; it is giving to those who live in cities facilities somewhat on an equality with those given to returned soldiers who are to settle in the country. The question of industrial loans, while they would have to be gone into very carefully and perhaps inaugurated on a small scale, would help to establish our soldiers in industry and education, would make them more efficient in fighting the economic battles of the future. I believe (that any money invested in these three things will help the capacity of the country to pro-

duce while at the same time helping the individual soldier. If the committee felt that they were not justified in accepting any of these suggestions on the basis that if they helped any soldiers others would complain that it was unfair to them-if that is their difficulty-let them do this in the national interest and let them say that "we will extend loans and assistance to soldiers when we are certain that these loans will actually help to re-establish them and will actually add to the ability of the country to carry on its work in the future."

In regard to the housing scheme, if I may revert to it, I believe that already we are loaning to countries in Europe money for the lumber that is going from British Columbia. If it be true that we are loaning this year some $106,000,000 overseas to develop and carry on our industries here, could we not loan money to our soldiers in Canada? Would it not bring the same profit to the producers of these commodities and would we not have additional advantage in the establishment of homes in this country that would be part of the producing plant of Canada? I do think that if the Government, in pursuance of its very necessary policy of keeping industries going and obtaining markets for our products, would try to divert as much trade as possible into these channels and at the same time give assistance to our soldiers, they would be not only achieving the object which they had in mind but they would also be going a great distance towards the re-establishment of our soldiers.

I submit' these ideas to the House in all deference having regard to the opinion that the committee has formed. But I absolutely believe that this country can raise the money. It does not have to be raised this minute or this year but gradually perhaps in the next twelve or eighteen months. I believe that by carrying out the various schemes which I have suggested a great many soldiers would be assisted and that the national interest would be advanced. I do not think that the question is settled, or that the report which has come down will forever close the question of benefits to our soldiers. Nor do I think the committee intended that it should. The Government should very seriously enter into the consideration of some reasonable plan which would go further to re-establish the soldiers. I do believe that the soldiers in fairness can come to the conclusion that everything has not been done that might be done for them.

I cannot support the amendment because it is an amendment on the question of TMr. Redman. 1

cash gratuities. I think that before we pay cash gratuities we will have to deal further with our disabled soldiers and that pensions should be increased by fifty per cent if necessary. Our pensions to-day, while they will enable a person to live, will not allow them to live in some cases even in comfort. If we are going to spend large sums of money and to give it absolutely, our duty in all commonsense would be to turn our surplus first towards further aid to the disabled and pensioners.

What I have advocated to-day is the question of loans, in most cases fairly well secured, and every dollar of which will actually go towards re-estabishment, every dollar of which will do some good to some soldier. I think the difficulty with respect to differentiation as between soldiers can very fairly be overcome, as it was in the case of land settlement, by declaring that these proposals are in the national interest.

At 12.30 p.m. Mr. Speaker declared it one o'clock, that the House might receive His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, and the House accordingly took recess.

Mr. H. C. HOOKEN (Toronto West):

There are a few observations I would like to make upon this question. First, I want to express my sympathy with the members of the committee who had this matter in charge and to say that I believe they performed their duty with as much earnestness, sincerity and sympathy for the soldier as any group of men in Canada could. In their decision, Sir, against granting a cash gratuity, I think they will have behind them the opinion, not only of the country, but of the great mass of the soldiers themselves. Any plan for the indiscriminate granting of a cash gratuity *would, in my judgment, be so full of inequalities that it could not be justified at all; and in many cases a further cash gratuity, such as has been suggested by some of the men who may be classed as agitators, would perhaps be the worst thing that could be done for some of the individual soldiers. II am absolutely against a cash gratuity.

The real problem in regard to these men who have come back to us is not a mass problem, but an individual one. Men have returned from the front who have not lost a week's time; they have gone into their old positions and are just as happy and comfortable now as they were before they went away. In many cases, their training on active service was a physical benefit; and many of these men are better off, both physically and financially, than before they enlisted and went to the front. *

I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, all that our soldiers have done. I am grateful to them, individually and collectively, for the service which they rendered to this country; but I do not think they have any claim to an additional cash payment, and I do not think they are the kind of men who want a cash payment. As a matter of fact, Sir, this country cannot pay our men in cash for the sacrifices they made overseas. What amount of money will pay & man for the loss of both his legs? No money payment will compensate him for that loss. If you gave him $5,000 a year for the rest of his natural life he would prefer to have his

two, legs and for you to keep your money. Sacrifices of all kinds were made that money cannot pay for; and

we must find some way, if it is possible to find one, by which the country can express its gratitude in fitting terms to the men who have been disabled. This war convulsion imposed upon the people of our country and the allied countries a task that only one class of our nation could perform. Only the young men of Canada could go to the war, it was a job that the older and middle-aged men were physically incapable of performing; and so this duty devolved upon our young men- it was they alone iwho, by reason of their physical fitness, could go to fight for us and save the country. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that each one of the men who went out in the spirit of sacrifice-especially the men who went after St. Julien and Festubert and who knew what they were going into-has a right to be regarded as a hero. They went out from comfortable homes and voluntarily entered into a hell to save this country and to save civilization; and my judgment is, Sir, that they now possess something in the way of a feeling of satisfaction with what they have done that is infinitely more valuable to them, and a greater source of pride to their families, than any cash payment or consideration of any kind that could be given to them.

The leader of the Government has pointed . out most eloquently that our most sacred duty is to the disabled and to the widows and dependents of the men who have fallen. I would :be sorry to think, Sir, that the pensions that have been decided upon are final. I think there is room for a revision of these pensions which may be made from time to time.

Sir GEORGE FOSTER:

That is really provided for in the findings of the com mittee.

Mr. HOCKEN:

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

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