Angus Alexander MCLEAN

MCLEAN, Angus Alexander, K.C.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Queen's (Prince Edward Island)
Birth Date
December 17, 1854
Deceased Date
April 3, 1943
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Alexander_McLean
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=8674907d-aa3e-480a-b0d4-7fec3386fb71&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
CON
  Queen's (Prince Edward Island)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
CON
  Queen's (Prince Edward Island)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 78)


September 19, 1917

Mr. A. A. McLEAN:

He is wrong in

that case. Tho.^e men were assigned a pension over ia year before the Order in Council was passed.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink

September 19, 1917

Mr. A. A. McLEAN:

I 'Say that under this Order in Council the board had no power to reduce it.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink

September 19, 1917

Mr. A. A. McLEAN:

These Orders in

Council provide that:

All pensions awarded to members of the forces shall -be determined by the disability of the applicant without reference to his occupation prior to enlistment.

The eases that I refer to were the cases of two men permanently injured. One lost his heel and another ibad an injury called anchylosis of the shoulder. They received 111 a month. The injuries to these men were obviously permanent. In the month of June these men were reduced from 111 to |8 a month. I had the certificates of independent medical men to whom these men went and who certified that their injuries were permanent. I claim that under clause 8 of the Order in Council they could not reduce the pensions of these men. It is true that if a man contracts rheumatism it would not be proper to continue his pension because that would not be a permanent injury. But these were injuries to the body, real injuries which will, remain during the lives of these men. Yet the commission reduced the pensions. Once a man gets a pension he gets it for life. One of these men cannot move bis arm beyond a certain height and he cannot engage in the business in which he was employed previous to going to the war. I understandthat in England a man's previousoccupation is taken into consideration when pensions are granted.

But this clause was put in saying that a man's capability to engage in his previous occupation would not he taken into consideration. For that reason clause 8 was enacted to provide that where the disability was permanent there should be no reduction. I would ask the commissioners to take these two cases into consideration. I *think they have read this provision wrongly and that they should not reduce men who are permanently injured as are the two men of whom I speak.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink

September 19, 1917

Mr. A. A. McLEAN:

But, that is not the wording of the Order in Council. The Order in Council provides that a man who is permanently injured shall receive a pension, that is, a man who is suffering from an injury which will continue for the rest of his life. The wording of the Order in Council is that such a man is entitled to receive a pension, and that pension shall not be reduced. At the same time, the commissioners have reduced these pensions. Once a man is permanently injured, he comes under the Order in Council and gets his percentage, and that is not to be reduced. In reducing these pensions I believe the commissioners have been contravening the provisions of the Order in Council.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink

September 19, 1917

Mr. A. A. McLEAN:

I should like to refer to the deductions which have recently been made in pensions. Since the Order in Council of June 30, reductions have been made in the pensions of men permanently injured in the war. Now I think that is absolutely against the provisions of the Order in Council, Section 8 of which is to the effect that each case shall be subject to review at the end of a year from the time the pension is first granted, except in those cases where the disability is obviously permanent, and then there shall be no further review. That is, if a man was receiving $11 a month, he could not at the expiration of a year, if he was permanently injured, have any reduction made in his pension. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that the injury is permanent, my information is that the pension has been reduced by the commission from $11 to $8 a month. It is evident from the provision of the Order in Council that if a man has a permanent injury and receives a pension, the pension remains as -it was originally and must not be decreased. The idea of decreasing the pension is obviously against the meaning and purport of this Order in Council, and of the resolution which was passed in this House last May, and I would like to get the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in regard to it. There are a great number of cases in which those pensions have been reduced without any just cause ot reason; they were reduced in contravention of the wording of this Order in Council.

Topic:   SUPPLY.
Full View Permalink