Mr. BENNETT:

The only difficulty being that it set up two forms of machinery, the central board in addition to the pension board, and the district boards in the military districts; in other words, the district board heard the case first, and reported to the board of appeal here, and they made a judgment. Now the essence of a -court of appeal is that it should be of at least equal knowledge we

Pension Act-Mr. Dennett

will say, and of equal intellectual capacity and power as the court from which the appeals are taken. I am sure the minister will agree that it was intended in the first instance that the appeal board should not be of a permanent character-we all realize that the pension board has come to stay for many years-but was in essence a temporary tribunal created for the purpose of bringing about the determination of the granting or refusing of pension upon evidence which they would take on the ground, as distinguished from evidence that might be presented to the pension board sitting in Ottawa. That is the general principle.

Mr. RALSTON:

That was why the provision was made in the recommendation that this board at Ottawa should not reverse a decision of the district board without actually nearing the man.

Mr. BENNETT:

Quite so. That, you see, involved again two movements of the board. The district bo^rd take the evidence, and then they report here, and a reversal of the board's judgment would necessitate their also seeing the man.

Mr. RALSTON:

No, they did not report at all unless the Board of Pension Commissioners appealed the case.

Mr. BENNETT:

Quite so.

Mr. RALSTON:

It stood unless appealed.

Mr. BENNETT:

It involved three sets of machinery-the district board, the Board of Pension Commissioners, and the board of appeal. The other House, for reasons that I have always thought were fairly sound, concluded that if we had a pension board and a board of appeal, which board of appeal was a moving court, something like going out on assizes and actually seeing the men and hearing the cases, that would be far better than the other method. Here is a difficulty and a very practical one. You can see how difficult it is for a pension board, after it feels that it has given mature consideration to a case and arrived at a right conclusion, to change its mind merely because some other tribunal which they think is.not so well equipped in any way has arrived at a different conclusion.

Mr. RALSTON:

That is what happens in England.

Mr. BENNETT:

I know, and my hon.

friend from Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGib-bon) has just made observations with respect to what took place in the appeal board as compared with the pension board. Let me put

this case which my hon. friends from Quebec have seen in the press lately. The appeal board decided that A was entitled to a pension. They so reported; the pension board refused to award pension, and that unfortunate soldier has gone to the courts of this country to secure a mandamus to compel the pension board to do what the board of appeal says the soldier is entitled to have done. Now that is all wrong, and it must be.undone by some method. I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was dealing with the case before he went away, and I doubt not that the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) is now giving it his attention because it is a public scandal that a tribunal set up for the purpose of rectifying a grievance done to a returned soldier should, after a report has been made entitling him to a pension, refuse him a pension because the board did not have sufficient confidence in the court of appeal to carry out its awards. Of course the action was improperly taken, and it has given rise to a good deal of discussion. All that is wrong, and I am sure the minister will say so.

My hon. friend from Muskoka-Ontario also had in mind a case which he mentioned to me just after he sat down. He endeavoured to secure a pension for a nurse who had been refused a pension by the pension board. The hon. member went to the court of appeal on her behalf, and the appeal board said that the woman was entitled to a pension. Did she get it? She did not. Now I put this to my hon. friend. Will anything but legislation cure that evil? All the broad comprehensive rules of interpretation and the most sympathetic administration will not change the vital fact that to-day the pension board refuses to pay a pension which the appeal board set up by this parliament has said the applicant is entitled to receive. Surely we must undo that this session. Surely we must not wait until next session for it. Surely my hon. friend between now and Monday will devise a short amendment that will cover that, knowing as I do the ability and facility of expression of my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence.

I have spoken much longer than I intended, but I do press on the government, first of all, this consideration: that in providing for

pensions on a broad and liberal basis they but express the general attitude of mind of all the Canadian people. Secondly, that under our institutions any measures involving expenditure of public money must originate with the government; therefore when we press these matters on them we do so not as a party, but

Pension Act-Mr. Price

rather as individual members of parliament who look to them to give effect to what we conceive to be the will and the wish of the people. Thirdly, that in view of the promises made and the way in which last session ended, it is not too much to suggest that between now and Monday the hon. ministers may be able to prepare such amendments as will relieve the most pressing of the grievances indicated by the soldiers themselves. I say the most pressing. I am not unfair enough to suggest that the two hon. gentlemen could meet all the various conditions in the short time at their disposal; quite the opposite, and I know they have given this matter perhaps much more consideration than any of us. I also know of the pressure of public business and the difficulty of concentrating on many problems to the exclusion of all others that they have to deal with in the public interest. I do not say that many of these recommendations cannot be met by a moderate, well-tempered and sympathetic interpretation of the present statute. I agree with the minister in that, but I do say that one or two, if not three, of the matters to which I have ventured to refer to-night cannot be dealt with in that way.

Mr. RALSTON:

Not one of them is dealt with in these proposals.

Mr. BENNETT:

I think the minister will agree that the suggestions are certainly such as in practice we have all come up against. I am only speaking out of the fulness of my heart. I only know what I have seen. It reminds me of the story of an unfortunate claimant for a pension. Not getting it at the first attempt, after a long time he tried again, but with no better success, and he was told that his ill health was attributable to pre-war conditions. He was a man who read his Bible much, and his temper still had not been frayed. So he told me he was like the man who in Scripture had been cured of his blindness, and on being asked about how it happened said, "I only know that whereas I was blind now I see." Said this poor unfortunate soldier, " All I can say is this, that wheTeas before I went to the war I was sound,

I now know I am a broken derelict." I thought it was an excellent answer.

These matters to which I have referred, perhaps at greater length than necessary, are matters that cannot be dealt with by any wide interpretation of existing legislation, and I do venture to suggest-not in any party spirit, for I know hon. gentlemen opposite have just as warm a desire as any other hon. members to help t'he returned soldier-that it is not asking too much to expect that

between now and Monday, say during Saturday-when of course ministers have nothing to do but attend council where they can write these recommendations-they may be able to prepare the necessary amendments in order to give effect to the most pressing demands of the moment. With respect to this particular measure dealing with the appeal board, if in practice it has been found desirable I think the House will be the first to say the bill should be passed. As to insurance, if it can be extended it does not seem to me that from an actuarial standpoint the country is running any very great risk. The cost of management has not involved us in any very great monetary risks because there has been a fair regard for actuarial considerations in the preparation of the tables. The losses have not been greater than were anticipated, and the accumulated funds are as substantial as might be hoped for under the circumstances. In view of these considerations I join in suggesting to my hon. friends that in the short interval be^veen now and Monday they prepare such legislation as will give effect to the most pressing of these grievances.

Mr. O. B. PRICE (Westmorland):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. King, Kootenay), to two very important telegrams which I have received. I will not detain the House by reading all the telegrams which I have under my hand with regard to the Pension Act. The first telegram is from Moncton and is addressed to myself:

Amendments to Pension Act urgently required this session in order to assist in relieving distress among sick and disabled. Your kind cooperation will be greatly appreciated.

E. L. Morris,

Secretary Riverglade tuberculous branch Canadian Legion.

I wish to point out that these boys were gassed at the front, and I am sure if the hon. minister would visit the sanatarium at Riverglade he would appreciate their sufferings. I would ask his particular consideration of these cases. The second telegram is also from Moncton and reads:

Advice received here . government do not intend to consider legislation re pensions and insurance for returned men this session as proposed to them by headquarters of the Canadian Legion. Please press all possible for government's reconsideration of this decision.

L. T. Tingley, Secretary Treasurer.

In view of what the hon. minister said in reply to the question which I placed on the order paper as to whether legislation would be introduced this session to relieve these men.

Pension Act-Mr. King (Kootenay)

who are not now covered by existing legislation, I would ask him if it is his intention yet to introduce such legislation, or does he desire to have the government stand before the people declaring that it has refused to give consideration to these really deserving cases, especially in view of the fact that millions of dollars are being spent t'o-day throughout Canada for purposes not of such import as those which have been brought to the atten-, tion of the government during this debate? The hon. minister will no doubt recognize that thousands of people throughout' the Dominion are watching to see what the government intends to do. It is up to the government to look after the returned men. They have not been properly looked after in the past. Therefore before this session closes the government should show some consideration for the boys who went to the front and for their relatives and their dependents who are in distressed circumstances.

Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):

The discussion today has, I think, been advantageous and will serve a useful purpose. It must be evident to those on both sides of the House who have listened to what has been said to-day that certain conclusions can be drawn. In the first place, the principle on which our present pension legislation is based is sound; pensions will be paid on account of disability due to war service. That is the primary principle. From the discussion this afternoon there seems to be a feeling among the members of this House that the pension authorities who administer the act are, if anything, too circumscribed within the scope of the legislation. It is difficult to make that statement and it is one that should not be made without fairly mature consideration. It is true that all of us have been interested in cases such as have been mentioned to-day. Before I became minister, as well as since, I have had brought to my attention cases in which I had personal knowledge and I felt that consideration should be given them. Some of these cases have gone to the pension board and on appeal have been rejected. I do not know whether it would be within my right or the right of any member of this House, because he happened to fail in his presentation of a case, to suggest that the machinery of the pensions board had fallen down or that the act was not being properly administered; for I think it is generally conceded, not only in Canada but universally, that the Canadian pension laws are as liberal as, if not more liberal than those of any of the allied nations except possibly the United States. Three or

four years ago a similar feeling prevailed in this House, that the pensions board was not dealing as it should with certain cases. As a result of that impression the appeal board was established and it has served a useful purpose.

There has been brought forward to-day a question, which I might as well consider now as later on, regarding the activities of the board. The appeal board came into being on October 1, 1924. There were entered 10,154 appeals of which 5,122 were disposed of without hearing, there being no jurisdiction. That left a total of 5,032 bona fide appeals, of which 691 have been allowed. There have been disallowed 2,047 while 352 are pending judgment. That makes a total of 3,090 cases considered, leaving still to be heard 1,942. These are the figures submitted to me by the department. The hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling) made the statement that there were 1,400 appeals in Montreal still to be heard. What are the facts? In Montreal 236 cases have been disposed of, while cases awaiting disposal number 4, plus 269 which are not yet ready, that is to say, in which the soldier adviser has not sufficient ground on which to proceed with the appeal. So that throughout the country, from Halifax to Vancouver, appeals have been heard and adjustments made to the number of 3,090, while there are 1,942 cases still to be considered.

Regarding legislation which might be brought down this year as suggested, a week or ten days ago I thought it would be fair to the soldier organizations as well as to the House to indicate the line of action the government would be able to take with reference to the matters that had been submitted by the Canadian Legion and other soldier organizations throughout Canada. It is true that representations were made by various bodies and comprehensive memoranda prepared and submitted; it is also true that we had the honour of meeting various officers of these associations in consultation. At that meeting I requested the presence of the chairman of the pension board, the deputy minister of the department, the assistant deputy minister, the medical director and other officers so that they might hear what the returned men had to say. We found, as we considered the various amendments, that many of them were intended to relieve individual cases or small groups; and it was pointed out by the officers who are familiar with the law that many of these cases could be dealt with by administrative means without the necessity for legislative action.

Pension Act-Mr. King (Kootenay)

With regard to tubercular veterans, whom we have heard discussed, I am sure we are all sympathetic in our attitude to these par. ticular returned men. They not only made representations, as was set out in the memorandum to which reference has been made, but they also suggested to me as minister that if it were not possible for legislation to be introduced at this session I should undertake during the recess to convene a meeting of tubercular specialists to give the veterans an opportunity of stating their case to these experts. Since that interview I have instructed the officials of the department to arrange for a convention of that nature and it will be possible for the tubercular veterans, through their representatives, to appear before the specialists this season and make a full statement of their case. Tuberculosis is one of the diseases which after the war filled our sanataria, but to-day we find these cases dwindling in number. There are some new cases developing, and the difficulty in connection with these, eight or ten years after the war, is to establish their connection with military service.

As I stated a few moments ago, it has generally been considered that our pension legislation is generous. We know at any rate that there has not been that hardening which the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) has referred to, because in the last five years our pension bill has grown from $30,000,000 to $37,000,000, showing that the bill is being extended from year to year. Now the question is whether we should hastily consider amendments to meet certain representations which have been made at this session, or whether we should deliberately sit down and in close conference develop amendments which could be incorporated into our Pension Act next session, when a proper consolidation of that act may be made.

1 propose to move two amendments which are basic and primary in their character, which are of great importance to the returned soldiers and which I think will be very acceptable to them. The first amendment extends the period in which an application for pension may be filed from seven to nine years, the seven year period expiring this year. This will give two years more in which to file these applications, and from the representations which have been made to us I am satisfied that this is one of the things the men most desire. On account of the seven year period expiring this year, I thought it desirable that we should deal with it at this session.

The other amendment has to do with the re-hearing of applications upon the presentation of new evidence, and will be of advantage to a large number of men, although it is difficult to say how many. We know that from day to day representations are being made to us in which it is claimed that the individual, although he has gone to the pension board and the appeal board and failed in .both cases, has been able to find new evidence since, but has been prevented from fifing another application. Upon new evidence being submitted which in the opinion of a majority of the pension board is sufficient, under this amendment a re-hearing will be granted and an appeal from that re-hearing will be permitted if the decision is adverse to the applicant.

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):

May I ask the

minister a question just there? Since he has found the seven year limit to be a failure, why make it nine? Why put any limit on it at all?

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

I desire to extend that period for two years in order that that situation may be met while we are re-drafting the act next year. The veterans have laid down the principle that a soldier who has a pensionable condition due to war service should have the opportunity to make his representations at any time, which goes much further than anything we have yet considered. There is something to be said for it, however. In order that that situation may be covered for the present, I am suggesting this extension for two years-which has another advantage as well. Those returned men who have failed to file their claim will now have it brought to their attention that they are permitted another two years in which to do so, and they will be more apt to get busy and hand in their claims at once in order that they will have more chance of being considered. The longer these claims run and the older they become, the more difficult it will be for the applicant to prove his case.

I do not think it is necessary for me to continue at greater length. I believe the adoption of the amendments I have suggested and the undertaking of a consolidation of the act next year after thorough consideration and study, when the government will be prepared ito bring down further amendments, will meet the situation. The matter to my mind should be then referred to a special committee of this House early in the session, in order that all the details may be properly surveyed and scrutinized from various angles.

Private Bills

It is easy to say, "amend the Pension Act and reinstate the insurance act." This plan of insurance was adopted right at the close of the war in order to take care of a group of men who were not pensionable; they were given an opportunity of taking insurance and I think that continued until 1922. Some $70,000,000 or $80,000,000 of insurance was written, some of which has lapsed, and from that time until quite recently there has not been any great demand to open up this insurance scheme. We must remember that it is ten years since the close of the war; men who were thirty years of age then are forty today, and the insurance risk is not so good as it then was. Although it might be serviceable to some I am satisfied that it would not be fair for the government to bring in an amendment which would open up the insurance act for another period of years, with the little knowledge they now possess.

Mr. PRICE:

I would like to ask the minister a question. Why not deal with that matter at this session?

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

I think I have concluded the remarks I have to offer, Mr. Speaker. I am satisfied that if these two amendments become law the ex-service men will have been satisfied on two important items.

Motion agreed, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

Section 1 agreed to.

Mr. KING (Kootenay):

Mr. Chairman, I

beg to move the following amendment:

Subsection (4) of section 11 of chapter 62 of the statutes of 1923 is amended by the addition of the following proviso:

"Provided that if within one year after a decision by the Federal Appeal Board upholding a refusal of pension by the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada or one year after the passing of this act, whichever is the later, the applicant submits new evidence which, in the opinion of a majority of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, establishes a reasonable doubt as to the correctness of the previous decision, the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada shall reconsider such case, and if refusal of pension be confirmed, the applicant shall have the right of a second appeal to the Federal Appeal Board and its decision thereon shall be final and shall be binding upon the applicant and upon the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada."

The CHAIRMAN:

This amendment becomes section 2 of the bill.