Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that no announcement could have occasioned more genuine pleasure to members on this side of the House, certainly none has given me more personal pleasure since the opening of this parliament, than the word received by cable this morning that His Majesty the King had honoured our venerable Minister of Finance by inviting him to become a member of the Imperial Privy Council. I think it will be apparent to all that not only has the minister himself been honoured, but that our parliament and our country have been honoured as well. I know I express the feeling of the House when I say to the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding that it is a source of great pride and great pleasure to us all that His Majesty has thus honoured him. We hope and pray that he may be preserved in health and strength for many years to enjoy this distinguished honour, and to remain a source of strength and inspiration to us all.

Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Acting Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker,

may I be permitted, on behalf of the province of Nova Scotia, which regards the Minster of Finance as one of her most distinguished sons, to say to this House how proud we are of the distinction which His Majesty has conferred upon the right hon. gentleman. Few of our public men have such a long and distinguished political career to their credit, and few enjoy so fully the respect and confidence of their province. I wish to associate the people of Nova Scotia in these congratulations and to express the hope that the right hon. gentlemen may long be spared to adorn the public life of our Dominion.

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Calgary East):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the House that the Labour party adds its congratulations to those already tendered to the right hon. gentleman on this occasion. I do not suppose there is any public man in Canada who enjoys the respect of the whole country to a greater degree than does the Minister of Finance by reason of the great national services he has rendered. If for no other reason, I think the infinite patience which he displayed in the transactions of the Banking

Right Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate more deeply than words can express the great kindness which is shown to me to-day by the members of the House. Politics has its troubles, its trials and its strife, but it has its pleasant s\ide, and it is always a pleasure for me to think that amidst the hard fighting of politics-and I have had my share-I have always had the happy fortune of enjoying 1 leasant relations with the men who have differed from me as well as with those who iiave given me loyal support. I think it is quite possible to fight one's battles in an honourable way, to do the right thing for your own side believing you are doing it for the country, and at the same time win the respect and confidence even of those who differ from you. I shall not say any more ihan to express to my right hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition-with whom I have c ccasion once in a while to cross swords-to my hon. friend the leader of the Progressives, to my colleague from Nova Scotia, to my hon. friend also who last spoke representing another party, and last but not least to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, how deep a pleasure their cvarm appreciation has given me. I thank them sincerely for their good words.

Mr. CHURCH:

I would ask the right hon. the Prime Minister what disposition the government proposes to make of the fine report of the committee on Mines and Minerals relating to the coal question, and especially their strong recommendation as to the National Railways becoming busy by carrying coal at cost without any dallying?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The report has been adopted by the House, and certainly the government will take into consideration all its recommendations.

Mr. CARROLL:

I may tell my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church) that the report was concurred in by the House a few days ago, and I have no doubt the government during the recess will make it possible to carry out the representations which the committee has made.

Mr. KNOX:

Have we passed the Orders

of the Day, Mr. Speaker? We have no order paper.

Mr. SPEAKER:

On account of the long

sitting yesterday the Orders of the Day could not be placed before hon. members this morning, but I am quite willing to send this one to my hoo. friend.

Mr. KNOX:

I had a matter that I wished to mention. Should I be in order, Mr. Speaker, in bringing it up now?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

If I might

make a suggestion to my hon. friend; the Minister of Soldiers' Re-establishment has some amendments to a bill which it will be necessary for the Senate to consider, and if it is agreeable to my hon. friend to allow that matter to be discused at once so that the bill can go across to the Senate, I will suggest to Mr. Speaker when the matter is disposed of that we return to the Orders of the Day to give my hon. friend an opportunity to ask his question.

Hon. II. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment): About ten days

ago the House passed a bill intituled an act to amend the Pension Act. That bill had been carefully prepared. It was based on the recommendations of the royal commission which had been appointed to investigate the questions of pensions and re-establishment, and also to look into some charges that had been brought against the Board of Pension Commissioners. The bill as I introduced it in the House was rather a lengthy one, and contained two outstanding principles. The first principle was the restoration in' the Pension Act of the so-called "insurance" principle as against the "due to service" principle. The second principle of the bill was that which provided machinery for appealing from the decision of the Board of Pension Commissioners. These, I repeat, were the two outstanding principles that were a special recommendation of the royal commission.

The bill passed this House, and so far as these two principles are concerned they were not affected at all by the action of the Senate. In the Senate a committee was appointed, and for a time we in this House were all more or less filled with apprehension that some radi-

cal amendments might be made to the bill which might destroy one or both of those principles which were contained in the original draft. Happily those apprehensions were not well founded. It is true that the Senate committee amended the bill considerably, and a copy of the bill as reported from the Senate committee was distributed yesterday to the hon. members of the House. Reading over that bill one would find, naturally, that the insurance principle of the bill had been done away with, but when the report of the Senate committee was considered in the Senate chamber last night the insurance principle was restored in the bill exactly as it was passed by this House. So, to make a long story as short as possible at this late stage, both of the principles incorporated in the bill as presented to this House have been preserved in the Senate. As far as the insurance principle in the awarding of pension is concerned, it is left intact as it wras passed by this House. As far as the provision for appeal from decisions of the Pension Board is concerned, that has been altered, but not substantially.

The original bill provided for a district appeal board in every one of the nine units of the department, and also for a central appeal board. That was the recommendation of the royal commission. The Senate has amended that part of the bill in so far as it did away with the district boards as such, but has preserved the provision for appeal in the creation of a central federal appeal board composed of not less than five and not more than seven members appointed one-half for two years and one-half for three years. Provision is also made in the Senate amendment for members of that central board to come in contact with the appellants in every unit of the department. So if one stops to consider carefully the amendment of the Senate regarding the appeal provision, one comes to the conclusion that the privilege which had been secured for the men to appeal personally before the district appeal boards is- preserved, inasmuch as a section of the central board will sit in the different units of the department. So, though I would have preferred that the district boards be preserved-that was the wish of the returned men generally I think, and also the recommendation of the royal commission-while I would have wished that provision to have been passed integrally I do not see any reason why we should not concur in the amendment, because the provision for appeal is preserved and the appellant in each case will have the privilege of appealing personally or through his representative before the appeal board.

Pension Act

Some other minor amendments have been made to the act which I think we can very well concur in, inasmuch as some of those amendments do away with provisions that were meant to more or less meet individual cases. The Senate, in doing away with some of those clauses that were passed during the consideration of the bill the other day, introduced in the bill a new clause which I shall take the liberty of reading to the House. Some hon. members are concerned about some individual cases w7hich they claim are meritorious and in which pension should be awarded, but in the clause introduced by the Senate, hon. members will see, those cases will be dealt with notwithstanding the disappearance from the bill of some two or three small clauses:

Any individual case which, in the opinion of the majority of the members of the Pension Board and the Appeal Board acting jointly appears to be especially meritorious and for which in said opinion no provision has been made in this act, because such case did not form part of any class of cases may be the subject of an investigation and adjudicated by way of compassionate pension or allowance irrespective of any schedule to this act

That provides for discretionary power, outside any other provision of the bill, to deal with those special individual cases of which there are one or two, I think, within the knowledge of every hon. member.

Now, I do not think there is reason to refuse to agree with the amendments the Senate made last night to the Pension bill as passed by the Commons. We have worked conscientiously in this House, I think, to provide legislation that would meet the reasonable requests of the men generally, and that would also remove some of the grievances under which they labour. I think it is my duty to thank the House generally for the support they gave me in this respect. I think I can say that nothing has been spared to render the situation as satisfactory as possible for the men who have deserved so much from Canada. *

Mr. J. A. CLARK (Burrard):

I do not

know that this is the time to discuss the various amendments that have been made to the bill, but if I am in order I want to refer to one or two points. In the first place, I do not think any member of the House has had the opportunity of scrutinizing the amendments made by the Senate, and which the minister has advised the House to adopt. It is very difficult, therefore, for me or any other member of the House to express an opinion as to whether or not these amendments will do justice to the soldier body.

302i

The minister made some point of a section which he read covering individual cases. The Senate has passed a provision which gives the appeal board and the Board of Pension Commissioners power to award a pension in meritorious cases. Now, while I do not doubt that the Senate and the minister have it in their minds to cover those meritorious cases, I am just as satisfied that they will not and cannot be covered by the amendment as introduced, and I will give an instance showing how impossible this is-either it is impossible, or else the example I am going to cite is not a meritorious case, one or the other. We will take, for example, the case of a man who died the other day and who comes from the^ constituency of the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke)

Private MacPhail-while this is an individual case there are hundreds of such cases in Canada to-day, and probably if they were all covered it would mean a considerable increase in the annual pension bill, not a material increase but probably an addition to the public expenditure of an odd hundred thousand dollars per annum. Private MacPhail was severely wounded in France, one of his eyes being shot out; and he was taken prisoner. He was operated on without chloroform by the Germans about eight days afterwards. He had no attention up to that time. Both eyes were removed and no anaesthetic was given him. Private MacPhail was one of the first men exchanged. He came back to Canada and was discharged more than five years ago. Now section 33 of the act provides that if a man dies more than five years after the date of his discharge his dependents cannot be in receipt of a pension unless his death is directly attributable to military service as such. But this man, like many others, died from some disease -I have forgotten what it was but his death was certainly not due to his wound. His widow cannot be given a pension as a ''meritorious" case under the amendment referred to because of section 33. The minister stated distinctly-I wrote down his words- that the case was one for which no provision has been made in the act. Therefore, the Pension board and the appeal board cannot award a pension to the dependents of that man because it is otherwise provided for in the act.