November 6, 1919

UNION

James Alexander Calder (Minister of Immigration and Colonization)

Unionist

Mr. CALDER:

What about the interest?

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

William Foster Cockshutt

Unionist

Mr. COCKSHUTT:

The hon. minister -thinks it is necessary to suggest ways of raising the $16,000,000 that might be required to pay the interest on the $300,000,000 which I propose. Well, I think it would be fair to take a smtTll portion of that amount, not more than, say, a third or a quarter, out of current revenues. Possibly it may not be practicable to take it out of current revenue immediately, but that can be done within the near future when Canada is once more on a normal basis, and when the revenue of the country will take care of all expenditures and leave us a good surplus. I think I have heard the Minister of Finance in the last two or three years declare that there was a surplus over expenditure of anywhere from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000. I have a fair recollection of having heard those figures given to the House, Well, if that is the case in such times as we have been experiencing, is it

not reasonable to suppose that if we are willing, as we must be, to submit to heavy taxation for some years to come, we shall have a considerable surplus to apply in the way the minister has suggested ? While I would not apply it all on the soldiers' loan. I would apply a fair portion of it in that direction, which might run from two and-a-half to five million dollars per annum. In proportion to the amounts we have raised, three hundred million dollars is comparatively small. We have been accustomed from time to time to float one loan to pay another, and we shall have to do that in the future with regard to railways and many other undertakings in the country. Every one knows that we cannot pay it out of current revenue, and I do not think it is expected that we should. This $300,000,000 could be raised and the interest taken care of. As I have tsaid I do not advise that it should all be paid out at once, but from time to time as circumstances dictate. But we should have it available in order that we might not run any risk of tiring the country by continually appealing to itj. I do not know whether the minister feels that I have endeavoured to answer his question, but in my opinion I have made my position fairly clear.

I was going to say in conclusion that whether or not we give a further cash gratuity to the soldiers-and I am not sure that a little further cash gratuity would not be proper; at any rate I have a very open mind on that point-I would be generous and would suggest that we should do our utmost to meet the wishes of the returned men. And if they feel that they need two or three months' gratuity for the coming winter, which is likely to be a rather hard one, so far as I am concerned I would try to put up my share of it and would persuade as many as possible of my friends to do the same. I trust, Sir, that difficulties in the way will not intimidate us, and hinder us from doing what appears to me to be a plain duty. It is easy to conjure up mountains of difficulties and call upon the rocks to cover us and the hills to shield us. But the responsibility rests upon us and we must shoulder it bravely and manfully. I for one want to deal with the situation generously even if I go down in the attempt. As a taxpayer I think I am contributing to the State a good round figure, and I do not agree with my hon. friend* from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) in the view that the money can all be raised out of the manufacturers, because I can tell him that from 50 to 75 per cent of the manufacturers not only have not profiteered during the

war but they can affirm that their profits have been away below what they were in ordinary times. I do not want my good friend .to forget that point. I am supporting him on one point, but I want to keep his pride down a little by disagreeing with him on the other.

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
L LIB

Joseph Archambault

Laurier Liberal

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:

What about the Dominion Textile, for instance?

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

William Foster Cockshutt

Unionist

Mr. COCKSHUTT:

Oh, well, there may be a few odd cases in which no doubt profits have been made, but let me say that the whole matter in this respect is vastly exaggerated. It is done for a purpose, often to inflame one section of the community against another in a very unjust way. But after all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, the number of profiteers, yes, the number of millionaires in this country, is very much smaller than is generally supposed. My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) who is generally very well informed not only in regard to his own position but in respect of his neighbour's, accused me the other day of being in control of millions, and I take this opportunity of telling the hon. gentleman that he has been guilty of very gross exaggeration; and under the circumstances I rather deem it an insult in so far as I cannot "produce the goods."

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

I would be willing to

accept whatever the hon. gentleman has.

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

William Foster Cockshutt

Unionist

Mr. COCKSHUTT:

Well, I would draw

on myself to pay my share of our debt to the returned soldier, and I am not quite sure that my good friend can qualify in that respect. It is true that some members of his family did well, as I know, and I do not want to cast any imputations. I think it is the last thing that should be done in this House. Let a man be judged by his own conscience as to whether he has done all that he could have done in the war. But I think we will all confess that, having done all that we could do and sacrificed to the extent that we did sacrifice, we have not equalled the contribution that was made by the boys who went overseas to the cause for which we entered the war. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been led aside.

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

James Arthurs

Unionist

Mr. ARTHURS:

Do I understand the hon. gentleman's position to be this, that he would raise the soldiers' loan for the purpose of taking care, first, of the wounded and disabled men in Canada; and, secondly, to provide for necessitous cases that may ailse during the present winter, and any

fu nre cases for which we should properly care?

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

William Foster Cockshutt

Unionist

Mr. COCKSHUTT:

That is substantially the proposal I made. But there were about six propositions altogether.

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

James Arthurs

Unionist

Mr. ARTHURS:

Does that differ from the position of the committee, that we should take care of all necessitous cases for the present winter, with the recommendation that this work should be continued; and also the recommendation in regard to wounded and disabled men?

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

William Foster Cockshutt

Unionist

Mr. COCKSHUTT:

It does not differ from the report in that the work I have suggested is provided for therein. But in my judgment it is not sufficiently provided for in the report. I know that a big attempt has been made to do it, probably a generous attempt, but. it is thought by the soldiers that it is not sufficient, and I am asking that good and generous though these things are, they be improved to the extent I have proposed. Consideration must be taken of the increase all along the line in the cost of living and of the difficulties that the women encounter in carrying on their domestic arrangements and looking after small children that have been left with them. This aspect of the situation appeals strongly to me, and I cannot over-emphasize it. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have been diverted from the closing Temarks I was going to make. I hope the committee will take the suggestion I have made into their serious and most earnest consideration, and that they will view it in the light of an earnest and sincere proposal to better the condition of the soldier, who feels that the provisions that are outlined in the report do not go far enough. I would be quite willing to have the committee continue their labours and elaborate a .scheme more in consonance with the suggestions I have made.

I believe that it is more their duty to report the scheme and point out what ought to be done than it is their duty to provide means for raising the money. If they will come back to the House and tell us that they want $200,000,000 or $300,000,000, then it is the duty of the House and the Government to see to it that the money is obtained, and II am very sure that it can be.

Mr. O. TURGEiON (Gloucester): Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this question before it is put to the vote of the House. I do so on my own responsibility, without dictation or advice and only from a deep sense of my duty as the representative of a constituency that is known all over

the country as having done its duty nobly from- the beginning to the last day of the war. I know that it is not the intention of Parliament or the country to claim to be able to compensate the soldiers of Canada for the generous sacrifice they have made in going across the ocean and offering their lives in defence of British institutions. Any sum of money that we can offer, even- rum ning into the millions, cannot discharge the debt which we owe to these young men for the noble sacrifices they have made. I appeal to this House, as I have appealed to the people of my own constituency, that we must measure our gratitude to our soldiers according to the means of the country. When I say the means of the country I say our means should not be limited by considerations which might hold good in ordinary times. We have heard high authorities, among them members of the House and the Government saying-in appealing to the young men of Canada-and saying approvedly as far as I am concerned*-that Canada would give, not only the last man, but the last dollar, that the Government would do everything possible to win the war, even to placing Canada in a state of bankruptcy. I have shared these sentiments. Now, as to Canada being in suoh a state of bankruptcy which would operate to prevent her discharging her duty to her soldiers, only forty-eight hours ago this House declared that Canada was not in a condition of bankruptcy. Therefore, I feel that it is my duty to say that something should be done for the returned soldier to meet his legitimate demands. Nobly have they gone, nobly have they come back, nobly have they remained citizens of Canada, and British citizens, and nobly have they endured sufferings which are incalculable and in many cases scarcely realized. We are not to judge of the 400,000 or 500,000 soldiers by the expressions of two or three who have become nervous by reason of hardships suffered during the w-ar.

My hon. friend (Mr. Cookshutt) said that many of the returned soldiers apparently physically strong and who considered themselves as being physically as strong -as they were before they went away have come hack, after having undergone -the test of endurance over there, not the men that they were four years ago. We have bad instances -of that everywhere. I have had it in my own experience, in my own home, in my own constituency. Therefore, 1 say that the returned soldier who has been in the trenches in France a year, three months, six months, is not the man that he was

IMr. Tureeon.l

when he went over and who did his part with that courage, endurance and determination whi-ch was in- his body as well as in his heart.

This country is in duty bound to recognize such sacrifice. The millions of dollars that we may vote in this House are nothing at all compared to the sacrifices of these men. It is not a large amount that the reasonable soldier expects, but in the midst of the unrest which prevails in Canada as well as in the United States, Great Britain and all over the world as a -consequence of this war, everyone more or less party to it, it is not unnatural to find that the soldier expects that generous recognition be granted according to the means of the country. A grant of $2,500 to each man is n-ot necessary and n-ot desired by the majority. I admit that the committee that has been working on this soldiers' re-establishment have had before -them for their consideration figures illustrative of the responsibilities of the people that certainly did cause amazement to them as it did to every citizen of Canada. -But let us not say that we cannot discover some means of expressing the sentiment of gratitude that we owe to our returned soldiers.

In the Maritime Provinces, in New Brunswick, in- Nova Scotia, in Prince Edward Island, the younger generation, the men from every part of every county of those three provinces, responded t-o the call as freely and generously as they did from any part of Ontario or the West. They, born Canadians, joined with the British-born whose ambition it was to join the Canadian corps in the West. The young men of these provinces were all Canadian boys, boys of English, French, Scotch, Irish-Canadian and French Acadian descent. Every family did its duty in these provinces- according to its ability, so much so that in my own constituency 1,300 volunteers, nearly all the sons of farmers and fishermen, responded to the call of their country. In their generosity they are not claiming t-o be indulged, but they will appreciate what is done for them and in the measure of what is done for them they will become better citizens and more devoted to -Canada and the British Empire. I do not understand that the returned men want to go as far in their demands as has been suggested by my h-on. friend, the supposed millionaire from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt). I have before me the suggestion of -Mr. J. W. Margeson, who places the total amount at $200,000,000, -so that $100,000,000 more than we purpose to vote by this legislation would

make a fair distribution with which soldiers generally, whether farmers, fishermen -or industrial workers, would be contented and which they would accept as a final recognition on the part of Canada.

The committee favours the appropriation of 'forty or fifty million dollars

for the purpose of meeting some of the soldiers' demands. Why not addto that 8150,000,000 which would bring the amount near the total suggestedby the Mr. Margeson. Then I claim

there would be enough to satisfy the soldiers and put an end to the unrest which now exists among them. We have to consider that unrest; it has been engendered by a spirit of fervid devotion to our national interests and therefore we cannot afford to treat that sentiment lightly. The Minister of Immigration and Colonization, who presented the report, knows that if there is one man in the House who would be inclined to give it sympathetic consideration it would be the member for Gloucester; but in this matter I cannot be actuated by merely personal considerations-I must perform my duty to my constituency whose sons responded so nobly to their country's call in the recent war. The soldiers have acted generously, they are willing to accept twenty-five per cent of the outlay that would be involved in meeting all the demands presented. Why not make up our minds on the subject at once, and act accordingly. I do not say that I will vote for the amendment pledging us to the amount of $400,000,000, but I do say that when the Bill to be founded on the resolution which has been introduced comes before the House, if nobody else submits an amendment, I will move one requiring a grant of 8150,000,000 to be distributed as a gratuity and as an evidence of the best that Canada can do in this matter. I feel sure that it would be accepted by all the veterans' associations in this country.

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

Levi Thomson

Unionist

Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle):

1

was slightly disappointed with ,the remark of my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) when he suggested that this matter could not be finally dealt with at the present stage. I had every anticipation that some arrangement might now be arrived at whereby the matter could be finally settled, and I still entertain some hope in that regard. While I quite concur in many of the favourable things that have been said with respect to the report we are now considering, I must say it is not quite satisfactory to me. Nor is the amendment which, has been moved quite satisfactory, either, and therefore, I have to decide what I shall do under the circumstances. The report seems to assume an inability on our part to raise the necessary money provided the decision is reached to give a further gratuity to the soldiers. I do not for a moment agree that this country is bankrupt, or nearly bankrupt. I refuse to agree for a moment with the idea that we cannot raise the money that is required even to pay the largest amount that has been suggested. While I would not approve of paying that maximum amount, I still believe that our financial position would enable us to .raise the money that would be needed providing we decide that it should be raised. I do not think the inability to raise the money, which members of the committee seem to take for granted, really exists. I believe the people of Canada to-day are enjoying a higher .standard of living than they have ever *enjoyed before. I believe they are richer to-day, and tha't Canada is richer to-day, notwithstanding the debt that hangs over it, than ever before. The financial condition of that part of the country from which I come depends almost entirely upon the yearly returns from the farm crops. During the last four years the crop there has been unusualy light, it has been worse than the average crop throughout Canada. The farmers there are prosperous but were it not for the war we would not be in that condition-we would be hard up. Because of the increased prices, resulting from the war, the country is in a very good financial position; and I am satisfied that the people in that part of Canada-although I do not think they have fared as well by reason of the war as have the people generally throughout the rest of Canada- would be willing to pay any reasonable amount that may be required in order to settle the claims of the soldiers, provided they felt those claims were reasonable and that they should be paid. I am satisfied that the people of Canada generally will look upon the question in the same manner. ,

I do not think the Canadian people have-yet given in taxes until the giving hurts. Our young men who went across the sea did give until their sacrifices hurt and hurt badly. Now, in view of what I have stated, I fail to see why we should be in such a terrible position that nothing further is to be taken from us in the form of taxes than has been already exacted. Some suggestions have been made as to the methods of raising the money that may be required,

and of course such suggestions are always in order. It is quite true that death and taxes are the surest things in this world, and they are also the most unpopular. At the same time, I think the idea of paying taxes is more popular in this country than it ever was before. I believe the people of Canada are more ready to pay the taxes that are required than was ever previously the case in our history. I have listened with a great deal of attention to the remarks of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization in presenting this report, and I must agree with other hon. gentlemen that he delivered an admirable speech. It was a wonderful speech and very clear and explicit in its character. Nevertheless, it contained some things with which I cannot agree. I find myself very often agreeing with my hon. friend (Mr. Calder), and have done so during the whole of his political life; but in this case I cannot agree with him in some things and there are some matters in the report in which I do not concur. I notice, however, that the report, dealing with certain suggestions as to the way in which the necessary taxes may be raised, does not state positively, that these suggestions are not practicable and may not be worked out. The committee does not say the suggestions cannot be "worked out and I am inclined to think they can. I do not think the House will for a moment consider the idea of raising the necessary money by lotteries, or any such schemes. The House would not permit that or vote for anything of the kind, .so I think we can dismiss such suggestions without further comment. Other methods, however, have been suggested. They are referred to at page 45 of the report and it is in regard to these that the committee refrains from saying they cannot be worked out in such a way as to yield the necessary revenue. My hon. friend from North Simco-e (Mr. Currie) has a pet way of his own for raising money-he would obtain it by further protection and customs taxation. Now I do not intend to enter into a fiscal argument with my hon. friend.

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Why not physical argument?

Mr. LEVI 'THOMSON: There is no need for .physical argument; I am too old for that and perhaps, too. wise. I was about to say -that I do not think the people of the West-although they are opposed to protection as a rule-will object to paying taxes in any way that can he conceived for the purpose of helping out our men, pro-

vided tho.se taxes go into the revenue of the country.

The great objection I would have to the suggestion of my hon. friend is that it would work out that we would have to pay three dollars in taxes for every dollar that went towards the relief of this present situation, and I do not purpose to argue it any further than that.

But I would suggest another .plan. Speaking for the people of Saskatchewan, I say that they do not object to paying their share of any reasonable amount that is rerequired to reinstate our returned men. If, Mr. Speaker, you want to raise that money by a customs tariff, you can raise only a certain amount, .because if you go beyond a reasonable tariff limit your receipts of revenue will decline. I doubt very much if any large measure of relief could he obtained in that way. However, if .it was found necessary to raise the customs tariff, I, would not abject very seriously to some slight increases, provided our manufacturing friends would agree to pay an excise duty equal at least to one-half of the customs duty that, we are paying. Even then they will still have sufficient protection left, provided they are on their jobs as they should be. If we adopt that plan I do not think we need worry any further about the raising of sufficient revenue by way of taxation to meet the requirements of any scheme that we may decide to adopt for the reinstatement of our returned men.

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

Francis Ramsey Lalor

Unionist

Mr. F. R. LABOR:

Will my hon. friend permit me a question? What does he think of the suggestion to raise the money toy a special tax upon assessed property-land all over the country?

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

Levi Thomson

Unionist

Mr. LEVI THOMSON:

I would not object. I do not pretend to have given any mature consideration to the scheme, tout I am inclined to think that a land tax might ibe a very good way of raising a portion of the money.

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

Francis Ramsey Lalor

Unionist

Mr. LALOR:

On all landed property?

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

Levi Thomson

Unionist

Mr. LEVI THOMSON:

I am not prepared to say that that would not he a good way of raising the money. But I am not the Finance Minister, and I am afraid that such a suggestion from me with my. limited experience would not be particularly valuable. But the point I want to make is that so long as our people have the- money-and they undoubtedly have the money to an extent they never had before-then it is the duty of the Government to get as much of that money as they require; and there is

no doubt /that our people are just as ready, if not more ready, than they ever were before in our history to pay whatever is required.

We are told that it would not be safe to increase the business or income tax by reason of the fact that we are now charging as high or a higher rate than is charged in the United States; and we are told that if we do charge a much higher rate than is charged in the United States our manufacturing and business and financial men would desert Canada and no money would be invested here. Now, I come from western Canada and live near enough to the boundary line to know that the farmers to the south by reason of our peculiar laws are very much better off than are our Canadian farmers. I know that by reason of our customs tariff, and other things which I need not detail, the farmers of Saskatchewan would be millions of dollars better off provided they were in the same position as the farmers in Dakota. But I have not yet seen our Saskatchewan farmers driving across the line; they have not deserted the ship. The mere fact that they are not as well treated as the American farmers has not induced them to desert Canada. I am not prepared to admit that the manufacturers and business men of Canada are less loyal than our farmers, and therefore I believe that their loyalty is strong enough to induce them to meet all demands that may be made on them in order 'that our soldiers may be fairly treated.

It stands to reason that we in Canada in order to pay our war obligations will have to raise more money according to our ability than the people of the United States by reason of the fact that we were much longer in the war than our neighbours were. We complain about the amount of money we have to raise; and that is like complaining of our financial position. Let us compare our position with that of the people of France, of Belgium, or of Germany, and we must at once admit that our financial lot is very much better than theirs,-in fact, there can be no reasonable comparison drawn, the difference in our favour being so overwhelming. We hear this complaint all the time: we cannot stand any mo:re taxation, we have reached the limit. That complaint reminds me of my boyhood days when I went out to western Canada in 1882, when we had droughts or frosts practically every year, and we heard people grumbling: well, if this year is not better than last year you will find no one

in the country. Next year turned out to be worse than last year, |but ^till the people stayed on. We do not know what we can endure until we have been put to the test. I think we are hardly "enduring" at all in the matter of taxation, and it seems to me that it is time we were hit a little harder and made to endure more. The sooner that happens the better for our country and for ourselves.

The amendment is not altogether to my liking. As I understand it it is for payment out of the full sums mentioned in appendix (1); in other words, the suggestion of the Great War Veterans. If I understand correctly the action of the Great War Veterans, they merely made a suggestion which would be the basis of discussion; I do not think that they intended any amount mentioned by them to be the irreducible minimum. The committee,, however, appear to hav.e taken that as tha view of the Great War Veterans, and in that respect I think they have not correctly interpreted the suggestion presented to them. Now, if the mover of the amendment will agree to change it so as to include after the words "appendix (1) of said report" the following words, "with such modifications of the said plan as may be agreed upon," I feel disposed to support it; otherwise I feel very doubtful about it.

Now, we have been told about many things that have been done. We have been told about advances to soliders to enable them to buy land, and so on. I believe that the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act should be dealt with an a business basis. These advances should not be looked upon as gifts. If we consider them as gifts, we shall! be obliged to look upon any other sucl? advances in the same way. As I understand it, the reason we are providing special advantages for those who are willing to go on the land is found in the fact that for years there has been too great a movement from the country to the ci'ty and the need of the day is that we get the people back to the land. Any grants, therefore, which are being made to soldiers under the Soldier Settlement Act are being made in the public interest, not especially in the interest of the returned men. I think that is a fair way of looking at it.

In the last Parliament, before the election, I expressed- a view that I want to express again to-day. It is this [DOT] I can see no justification for giving less to private soldiers who fought at the front than ordinary labourers are receiving at home.

But we have been paying them less; therefore, if we are not bankrupt, the moral obligation is upon us to make good that deficiency. The private isoildier in toe trenches received approximately $400 a year, his board and sgme clothing. Those of us who had friends over there know that we had to send certain clothing to them, and that if we did not they had to get it otherwise. I cannot undertake to say positively what is the average rate of wage paid to the ordinary unskilled labourer and t-he farm labourer in Canada generally, but I do know something of what the rate has been in my own part of the .-country. From the knowledge I have and the information I have obtained I be-i lieve that the unskilled labourer at home, if he works steadily, as the soldiers were supposed to work at the front, could earn $700 a year, with his board and as much clothing as the soldier got. That makes a difference of approximately $300 a year between what the private soldier actually got and what they would have received had they remained here and worked as unskilled labourers. I do not know the average length of service of the men who went overseas. I do not think it was as long as two and a half years, but let ns assume that it was two and a half years. During that period they would be $750 short of what they would have received at' home as unskilled labourers. Now, we may deduct from that the amount that we are paying to the men under the present gratuity arrangement, which, in the case of a man who served two and a half years, would be, I think, $350. That leaves $400 to which the private soldier is entitled on this basis. I do not think it would come to that much, but even if it did, I do not think the payment of that amount would ruin the country. I do not think that our financial position is such as to cause us any worry as to the result of paying out such a sum.

When I spoke of this in the last Parliament someone suggested that I and others who were taking this ground had not given consideration to the enormous amount that the Government was paying to dependents of soldiers at the Front. I do not think that that is a fair way to deal with the question. It is possible that we paid as much to the few men at the Front who left dependents behind them, and to the dependents of these men, as we would be called upon to pay under the plan that I suggest. But we must remember that unmarried men with no . dependents were the most 5 p.m. numerous among the various classes of men at the Front. As

a matter of fact, a large majority of the men who went to the Front were unmarried and had nobody at home to support. These men did not receive within $300 of what they could have earned as unskilled labourers working at home in perfect safety. These are the men I am speaking of in the main;

I am dealing with this one phase of the question. I see no justification, provided we are not bankrupt, for refusing to pay an amount which, we must all agree, we are morally entitled to pay.

The necessity of raising this money at once has been brought up as a bugaboo. The member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) has met that suggestion. If it were necessary to raise money at once under some such plan as suggested by the member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) and the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Burnham) I think it could be done. But I do not think it is necessary to do that; I do not think it is necessary to raise any very much greater sum than is involved in the recommendations of the committee. I do not think it would be necessary to pay cash in most cases; we could give bonds or pay at some future time. Of course, if it is deemed to be the best way to pay the cash all at once, I would be satisfied; the money could be raised as suggested by the member for Brantford. But if it be deemed unncessary to pay the money at once-and I fancy that in most cases it would be unnecessary-the only cases that we would have to deal with at the time would be needy cases, and these are largely provided for by the Teport. In these needy cases the sum due to the men might be paid and charged up to them.

Again, there would be no extra money to raise in the case of those who are receiving the benefit of loans from the Government under the Soldier Settlement Act. The only cases in respect of which money would require to he raised, outside of the cases dealt with in the report, would be those of young men who require assistance in the line of education. In doing that I do not think it would be advisable to grant any cash assistance to young men who are attending universities or other educational institutions unless it could be clearly shown that they could not by any other reasonable means obtain the amounts required. I do not think that the amount required under that head would be very large. _

I want to dissociate myself entirely from any such suggestion as was made in this House last night with regard to the returned men getting the cold shoulder. I wish also to dissociate myself entirely from any

suggestion that the members of this House are trying to sidestep or dodge the issue. Perhaps I have a different way of looking at the matter from that in which many other members view it. I do not for one moment contend that I am more sympathetic with the returned soldier or one bit more interested in him than any other member of the House. I am satisfied that there is not.a single hon. member who is not anxious that everything should be done that can reasonably be done for the returned man, and who is not entirely in sympathy with the returned man and his requirements. The mere fact that some other hon. members may take a different view from that which I take is no reason why I should question their sincerity of purpose. The question is only one of what should and what can be done. While I may say that I admire very much the speech of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization ((Mr. Calder) in presenting this report, there is one thing in his speech that I did not like, and that is, if I might put it in this way, the veiled suggestion of resignation by the Government provided that the Government is required to make provision for any gratuities. It was a veiled suggestion pretty cleverly put forward. We are getting a little fed up on that sort of thing in this House. I remember a debate in this House in 1918 when we were told that if we did not accept an amendment brought forward by the Government with regard to titles, the Gov-vernment would resign. That was during the war. I voted on that occasion with the Government because I felt that if the Government forgot that we were at war, I was not justified in forgetting that we were at war and that it was necessary under the circumstances to carry on. During last session there was a discussion on the Budget, as the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) will remember, and I found in the newspapers and I heard around the House the threat hurled out that if we western "bolters" were not mighty careful, if we did not stay with the Government, the Government would resign and go to the country. We have now the veiled suggestion that if the Government is asked to have money raised to provide for gratuities, the Government may not be prepared to carry on.

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

James Alexander Calder (Minister of Immigration and Colonization)

Unionist

Mr. CALDER:

If the hon. gentleman will allow me just for a moment, I wish to say that there was no veiled suggestion at all.

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
L LIB

Daniel Duncan McKenzie

Laurier Liberal

Mr. McKENZIE:

No, it was very plain.

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

James Alexander Calder (Minister of Immigration and Colonization)

Unionist

Mr. CALDER:

It was a very plain statement of fact. There was no attempt to conceal it whatever.

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink
UNION

Levi Thomson

Unionist

Mr. LEVI THOMSON:

The minister says that it was a plain statement of fact. Perhaps that might look better, but I do not think it is any better. [DOT]

Mr. MeMASTER: Euphemism.

Topic:   THE SUGAR SUPPLY.
Subtopic:   COMMITTEE ON SOLDIERS' CIVIL RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
Sub-subtopic:   DEBATE ON CONCURRENCE IN REPORT OP THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.
Permalink

November 6, 1919