Mr. BELAND:

His case does come within the provisions of the act since he died more than five years after his discharge. If he died within five years the act would apply.

Mr. CLARK:

Yes.

Mr. BELAND:

There is no provision for him is there?

Mr. CLARK:

There is provision in this way: It is expressly provided by the act that if he dies after a period of five years his dependents cannot be awarded a pension unless the disability is directly attributable to military service. .

Mr. BELAND:

There is no provision in the act under which he can be awarded a pension?

Mr. CLARK:

No.

Mr. BELAND:

Then he must come under the "meritorious" clause.

Mr. CLARK:

I say there is no clause in the act which would give his dependents a pension, but there is a clause which denies them a pension, and as long as that clause denying the pension is in the act, no such clause as the minister has referred to can right that wrong. Because this section is expressly reserved to cases which are not provided for by the act. This case is provided for, it is provided that this man's dependents shall not get a pension.

Mr. BELAND:

I do not see the case in the same light as my hon. friend. If the case is unprovided for in the act this man's dependents have a right to present their claim as a meritorious case to the appeal board. That is the intention of the Senate amendment I think.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I do not think the minister has quite caught the point, and I am not so sure that I can state it to the committee more clearly than the hon. member (Mr. Clark) did. My hon. friend would be quite satisfied if the case in question-a case described purely by way of illustration-could come within the "meritorious" cases clause. All he argues for, as I understand it, is that it should have a right to come) within that class, and I presume if the case were meritorious it could be dealt with. But he says the only cases that can come within that class are those composed of another class, and these, not being within the compass of the other class, are denied the right to come within it. He only wants the right to come within that class, as provided in the bill before it was amended.

Pension Act

Mr. BELAND:

I see the point very clearly, but I will cite another case. If, for instance, the case referred to by my hon. friend were that of a widow dependent upon this soldier who was in straitened circumstances; though there is a section in the act which says that if he died within five years the widow would receive a pension, and if he died after five years she is not entitled to a pension, still the case may come before this board as a meritorious case.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

The minister s'ays others

can, but he cannot; he is denied the right, for the reason that he does not come within the class. He is specifically denied the right to come within the class of those who may come to the board on a meritorious basis.

Mr. CLARK:

She may come before the

Board of Pension Commissioners and the appeal board, if no provision has been made in the act for such a case.

Mr. CARROLL:

Under the broad principle of the act, there is a class entitled to a pension and a class not entitled to pension. I think the Senate amendments will give all those meritorious cases, to whom the act is directed, the power to come before this board composed of the pension commissioners and the appeal board, not that they are entitled to a pension-they may be debarred from it -but they may come before the board on compassionate and meritorious grounds. Some people are entitled to pension under the act and others are debarred from it. If there is a meritorious' case, to which compassion will be extended, I think the amendment if it means anything, will bring the case within the class. I am glad that the apprehensions which some of us felt a day or two ago, when the report came out that the Senate was likely to reject the amendments passed by this House to the Pension Act founded on the report of the royal commission, have disappeared. I have discussed this matter with some gentlemen who are deeply interested in the returned soldiers, members of the Great War Veterans; and while they feel that, perhaps, an injustice has been done in some respects', they think the broad insurance principle of the act and the appeal board generally has been maintained in the amendments proposed by the Senate. I hope that the gentlemen who are placed on these appeal boards will have a broad-minded sympathy towards the returned soldiers. 'I do not think either the soldiers, or their dependents or friends, are anxious that returned soldiers who are not entitled to pensions should receive them. But many cases have been decided

by the Board of Pension Commissioners where justice has not been done, in my opinion, to returned soldiers in the past; and this was the ground on which the Great War Veterans Associations and kindred organizations of this country asked for the royal commission. That commission made its report, and while they did away with the nine appeal boards, representing the nine units' under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, I think the broad principle of the act as introduced in this House has been maintained; and all I ask at the present time is this: although the Minister of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment has no real jurisdiction over the Board of Pension Commissioners, I think he should make it known in some way, publicly or privately, that it is the desire of himself and of this House that a broadminded sympathy should be extended to the soldiers in this country, because it is better that one soldier who is not entitled to a pension should receive it than that one soldier concerning whose right there is some doubt should be denied the pension. I have no doubt in the world that if the minister expresses this opinion to the Board of Pension Commissioners, and appoints men of broad sympathies to the appeal boards the problem of pensioning soldiers in this country will have been, I think, properly dealt with.

I feel that a great thanks are due to the royal commission for the efforts they put forth to do justice to the returned men of this country. They showed a broad and keen sympathy in their report for the snldiers, which I think the public are anxious should be shown.

Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):

I trust the minister will make the section relating to the widow in meritorious cases a little clearer. It would be unfortunate if this act were to pass with a clause that is open to argument. The cause of much of the difficulties in the history of the Pension Act has been the obscurity of the wording and difference of interpretation. I think, therefore, the minister would do well if, by the insertion of two or three words, he could eliminate the possibility of an argument or difference of opinion as to the meaning of this clause. At the same time I believe the section as it stands would enable those in charge to carry out the act satisfactorily. As there is this doubt, now is the opportunity of putting it beyond doubt. I would place the claim on the ground of a compassionate allowance. The act does not say that any special case shall not receive compassionate allowance. This is

Pension Act

substantially and in essence a compassionate allowance. While that is quite true it would be wise to make this matter clear beyond all question.

Mr. L. W. HUMPHREY (Kootenay West):

I am sure that I and many other members (if the House appreciate the action taken by the minister this morning in postponing the presentation of these bills to the House until this sitting, so as to enable some of us to obtain a little more information. I am sure the minister realizes that at the time these bills were presented this morning some of us did not know the real effect of them. Since ihen we have had an opportunity of studying them a little more closely and have gained some information. I should like to say just a word as regards concurring with the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll), and particularly to emphasize the fact that I think each member of this House has been watching the proceedings of the Ralston Commission, the action taken by the other legislative body, and the action of the different departments connected with the Board of Pension Commissioners and the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. I am sure each member of this House knows the attitude of the minister, and they know it is his intention so far as possible to assist in enforcing and carrying out these amendments to the act. By studying the findings of this commission, we shall find that the charges that were laid by the different representatives and the evidence given before that commission in regard to the administration of the Pension Act in past years were well founded. It was proven, in my opinion, that the act was not, administered as it was intended it should be. I was wondering if it were possible for members of this House to give a further expression of opinion in regard to the administration of this act as it affects departments under the control of the minister. We must realize that the success of these changes of the act as amended, depends entirely upon administration, and if it is proved by any investigation that the administration has not been what it was intended to be, better satisfaction will be created, not only amongst returned men, but throughout the country as a whole, if it is possible for this House to take any steps that will assure the country that this act will be administered as it was drawn up and intended to be administered. If possible, I should like to urge that thought upon the minister, in a way not bearing against or reflecting upon him at all, but with a view of furthering and

bettering the carrying out of the Pension Act.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, I rise only for one purpose. I wish to say a word as regards the pension commissioners. I do so speaking for myself alone, and not in this regard intending to represent the views of others. It has become somewhat the habit to attribute all disappointments in relation to pensions to the pension commissioners. It may be popular to do so. I know how difficult the position of many is. Whenever anything is declined, it is easier, of course, to blame the commissioners than to take any other course. But really I have a sense of justice, and I know nothing has come to my observation-and I have had many complaints all of which I have traced right through- to impair the confidence I have always felt in the chairman of the commission, or in its other members. The chairman of the commission is a man who, in the early days of the war, gave his services in a very difficult capacity, a capacity that men shrank from. He did so vigorously, with great devotion to duty, and with marked ability, for a period of many months, I think at least two years, or close to that. Entirely without remuneration, he gave his services to the country. Thereupon he went overseas and endured the worst that the war had to offer in the way of peril, privation and suffering. His ability is too well known to need words from me; it is well known to hon. members of all sides of the House; but if his ability is excelled by any other quality, it is by his integrity. I know his sympathy would be wholly with the men; indeed, I have heard from his lips expressions that have left, and will leave their impression upon my mind for many years, expressions that have convinced me once and for all, where his sympathy lies. But such is his integrity that no sympathy in the world would sway him from what he felt was his duty under the law. I am just as confident that John Thompson will administer the law truly, accurately and carefully despite all pressure whatever, as I could be of another man in his position.

If parliament wants the law to be different, and parliament does, the right thing to do is to enact it; to make the duty of the commissioners under the law more a duty of sympathy to the men, to make clear just what parliament intends, and the intent of parliament will be carried out in the law. I say that without any reflection on Colonel Ralston, whom I do not know so well by any

Pension Act

means. It is very easy for a commissioner to review this case and that, and, perhaps, to be of a different opinion. I do not impugn the sincerity of his opinion; but nevertheless, no matter who are the commissioners, no matter what is the law, and no matter how long we have experience in these matters, we shall always be able to say that in respect of this, that or the other case, a lack of sympathy was shown. Such is inevitable and inevitable, not only in a small degree, but in a great degree, and it is going to be the case from this on. It will be the case no matter who in the world sits in those seats. I thought it my duty to say this for Mr. Thompson. I have seen very little of him during the discharge of his duties as Pension Commissioner, but I know him well enough to say that he has been actuated by nothing but a desire to carry out the law as he comprehends the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I should like to be permitted to add a word. Busily engaged as I have been in other things, I have not had an opportunity to pay as much attention to this very important question of pensions for soldiers as I desire, and I do not wish to discuss anything that has happened as between the pension commissioners and others. But I ask permission to say a word or two from my personal experience, not so much as a minister, as a member of parliament. Many of my constituents had, as they thought, claims against the Pension board, and like other members, I received complaints. In every instance when I went to the Pension board I am satisfied I received from Colonel Thompson and his associates absolute justice. I say that in strict justice to them. I have the highest respect for Colonel Thompson, and while he may have erred in some of these matters, from my personal knowledge of him, representing as I did a number of people in my constituency who had complaints which they desired to have considered, I can say that he brought to the performance of his duty a high sense of responsibility that bore testimony to his eminent qualification for the position he fills.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):

I feel that I am bound to say something on this question, because I represent a constituency in which there are between 25,000 and 35,000 pensioners. Now I realize that the Senate is a very useful body and performs a serviceable function in this country. But in this instance I think that Chamber has not acted in the best interests of the people of Canada. The legislation was passed ty

the House of Commons after the most mature consideration. Last session a special committee went thoroughly into the whole question, holding some 47 meetings during the three or four months that it functioned. It utilized the material that had been established by its predecessors and heard various witnesses from all parts of the country. Before that committee evidence was given by the Pension board and by pensioners from every part of the country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The findings of the committee were crystallized into legislation, and after their work had been concluded a royal commission was appointed to investigate the entire subject relating to the pensions of returned soldiers. That commission visited many cities and took copious evidence, and the legislation that has now been passed by this House has been based on the soundest and the most complete inquiry that has ever been held into any subject of so important a character. The legislation was not hastily drafted; it was not ill-advised, nor ill-considered. The minister himself devoted a large part of his holiday to a study of the situation and he was assisted very efficiently by his deputy. They went exhaustively into the whole question, gathering material from every conceivable source, so that their investigation might be of practical assistance in the preparation of the legislation that was subsequently submitted to the House of Commons and adopted thereby. When brought down in this House the bill was considered very carefully clause by clause and the committee in a laudable manner forgot party for the time being, bearing in mind only the good of the soldiers themselves. The bill finally received its third reading and was sent to the Senate. I repeat, the Senate performs certain useful duties; and hon. members of that body, like hon. gentlemen in this Chamber, have the proud distinction of having had sons who participated in the war. But I do not think that the Senate was well-advised in dealing with the bill as it has done.

We are spending millions of dollars in this country on railways, on breakwaters, on canals and on other public works of various descriptions, and when we can devote such expenditures to the material necessities of the country, I think it should be the first duty of every member of parliament, whether of the House of Commons or the Senate, to see that the country's supreme duty by the soldiers is adequately discharged. These men went to the front and suffered for SI.10 a day, and 7,000 of those that went from my city will never

Pension Act

come back. In the position of Mayor of Toronto, which I had the honour to hold for seven years, there came to my attention, during a great part of that time, between fifty and sixty cases of returned men every day. The matter took up a great deal of my time, which, let me say, I never grudged for a moment. But my experience served to inform me of the great need of these men. I am therefore exceedingly sorry that the Senate should have interfered with a matter of this kind which comes altogether within the purview of this House, composed, as it is, of members who represent directly the people of the country. The Senate, I think, would have been well-advised to have left the question entirely to this Chamber. I hope, therefore, that the minister will maintain his position in this matter. If this bill were carried as originally passed by this House I am sure it would work satisfactorily in the interests of the returned soldiers.

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Calgary East):

The representatives of Labour in this country are not satisfied with this bill as amended by the Senate. I am sure that the House of Commons has very well expressed its opinion concerning the obligations which Canada owes to all her returned men who have suffered in any way in the discharge of their duties in the late war. Those obligations, we are all agreed, should be made good; that was the opinion of this House as embodied in the bill that went to the Senate and which now comes back more or less mutilated. It is deplorable that a body that is not responsible to the country should have the power to frustrate the wishes of the people's representatives in this way. Notwithstanding the expressions of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) with regard to the Pension board, I have an idea that they did more than their duty. I do not take issue with the right hon. gentleman as to the ability of the members of the board, but I do think that the representatives of the returned soldiers had some grievance inasmuch as it appears that the Pension board exceeded their duty. I think we should carry out our obligations to the returned men; of this there can be no question. It is the opinion of parliament, and there is plenty of money for the purpose. The Senate need not be concerned about saving the people's money in the way they evidently propose. The cry of economy so far as it affects the returned soldiers is false, for these men have well earned much more than we can give them. I very much regret that the act was mangled in the way it has been, and I hope

that next session it will be again introduced and at that time carried into effect.