1922-05-02

HON. MANNING DOHERTY CATTLE EMBARGO

Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: I desire to lay on the Table a return to an Order of the House dated 3rd April, 1922, for a copy of all correspondence passed during the year 1921 between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of Ontario relating to the activities of Hon. Manning Doherty in England on the subject of the cattle embargo. My right hon. friend yesterday made special mention of this report. I think it is perhaps due to him that I should give the explanation as to .why the return was not brought down immediately. I will therefore read a memorandum which has been handed to me by the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs:
I send herewith the return ordered by the House of Commons on the motion of Mr. White for correspondence relating to the activities of the Hon. Manning Doherty in England. There is no correspondence on this subject in this

department other than that contained in certain papers which the private secretary of the late Prime Minister left here about the time of the change of Government. I was not sure whether these papers were sent here for safekeeping, or to be accounted official and placed on the files of the department. I wrote two letters to the late Prime Minister's secretary asking this question, to neither of which I hav6 received any answer beyond a verbal message, whereas I asked for a written reply. Inasmuch, however, as Mr. Meighen is now pressing for these papers I assume there is no objection, in so far as he is concerned, to bringing them down. The papers have been ready since the 13 th April.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :: l presume that by "secretary" he means the former secretary who is not now under my charge.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would point out to my right hon. friend that he left all these papers in charge of this secretary. They were not left in charge of the department.


Arthur Meighen: They were, as far as I was concerned.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 63 (from the Senate) for the relief of Ethel Turner.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 64 (from the Senate) for the relief of Walter Michie Anderson.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 65 (from the Senate) for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Fredenburg.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 66 (from the Senate) for the relief of Sheriff Elwin Robinson.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 67 (from the Senate) for the relief of Rhoda Renfrew McFarlane Brown. -Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
Bill No. 68, to Incorporate the Frontier University.-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House do tomorrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend Section 477 of the Canada Shipping Act, chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, by adding the provisions that ships of war and hospital ships belonging to such foreign nation or nations as may be specified by the Governor in Council; and ships registered in Canada engaged exclusively in fishing; shall be exempt from the payment of pilotage dues.

Defence Forces
He said: His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of this resolution and has given his assent to it.
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Resolved, that the organization of the staff of the House of Commons adopted on the second day of June, 1920, be amended by striking out the words "Assistant Curator of Reading Room" in paragraph (e) under the heading "Miscellaneous Branch," and substituting therefor the words "Two Assistant Curators of Reading Room"; and that the organization of the Department of the Sergeant-at-Arms, adopted on the same day, be amended by striking out the figure and words "7 Parliamentary Messengers" and substituting therefor the figure and words "6 Parliamentary Messengers."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House do tomorrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider a proposed resolution to provide for certain advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of this resolution and has given his assent to it.
Motion agreed to.
SUPPLY-DEFENCE FORCES *
On the motion of Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister) for Committee of Supply:	_
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Burrard) :: Before
the House goes into Supply, I would like to address a few remarks on the work of the Militia of Canada, and of preparedness on the part of this country. Many arguments have been advanced in this House as to shew why this country should dispense with defence forces, and it is my intention to deal with a few of these arguments, and to attempt to give this House some information which I have been privileged to gain by having seen certain things, so that we may be in a better position to deal with questions relating to the military forces of Canada when they come before us. The main arguments advanced against this country maintaining defence forces are: First, that there is no one proposing to attack us; second, that we have plenty of men trained now; third, that the people are sick of war; and, fourth, that disputes in
the future will be settled by conference rather than by arms.
With regard to the first question viz.: who is about to attack us, I would remind hon. members of the pre-war assurances which were given by the Prime Minister of England to the House of Commons of England and to the people of the British Empire, that war with Germany was not only not impending, but was out of the question. I would also remind hon. members of the futility of making prophecies about war, and would recall the examples we have before us of the past hundred years- the example of war with United States in 1812; our own civil wars, the American civil war; and the fact that we are to-day faced with greater armies than the world has ever before been faced with-armies which are to-day mobilized by Russia, France and many other countries.
As to the second argument which has been advanced-that we have plenty of trained men now: The only inference, Mr. Speaker, that one can gather from that argument is that those advancing it propose that those men who took part in the late war should be called upon again to defend the country should there be a war. I was particularly struck by a question which the hon. member from East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn) put to the hon. gentleman for North Ontario (Mr. Halbert), the other evening when he asked whether it was the intention of that member that these men should again be called upon. The reply was "I had as many friends in kahki as the hon. gentleman who asked the question had I do not think that many hon. members wish to take credit to themselves for what their friends did in the late war, but there has been altogether too much talk about the number of trained men that we have to-day. We have many trained men, it is true; but they will be useful in this country only in teaching the coming generation the lessons gathered during the late war. I do not expect that *here will be war in our time, or war, at any rate, that these men will be called upon to take part in; but they should be f ailed upon now to complete the duty that they attempted to perform overseas, by passing on the lessons which they learned.
Then, there is the third argument-that the people are sick of war. The people who are really sick of war to-day are the people who served, the people who gave their sons, who gave their all during the war; but the people who talk most to-day
Defence Forces

about being sick of war are those Who are sick of their shame at not having done their duty in the past. Let me read the remarks of General William T. Sherman in this connection:
I confess without shame that I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. Even success, the most brilliant, is over dead and mangled bodies, the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for missing sons, husbands and fathers. It is only those who have not heard a shot, nor the shrieks and groans of the wounded, friend or foe, who cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation.
It is safe to say that those sentiments are the sentiments of every soldier; but despite those sentiments, I feel convinced that the great body of returned soldiers are still prepared to sacrifice themselves, should the honour of this country require them to do so in the future.
Then, we hear this .argument advanced: We look forward to the day when disputes will be settled by conference and not by arms. I agree, and I think all hon. members will agree, that we look forward to that day; but statesmen of all ages have recognized that the way to prevent war is to be reasonably prepared for war. What, for instance, would be the position of Mr. Lloyd George in the conferences which are taking place in Europe to-day if he were not backed by the force which is represented by the .British army and navy? Would any one suggest that he would be listened to if he had demobilized the British army and navy? Had he done so, no respect whatever would be paid to the remarks or arguments which might be advanced by him in those conferences. We have Sir Henry Wilson's classification, based upon that principle recognized by statesmen, of armies into three classes: First, those armies which are strong enough to prevent war; second, those armies which are too weak to prevent war, but which are strong enough to win war; and third, those armies which can only lose a war. Into which class does Canada fall? Canada has no army; Canada does not fall into any of these categories. But hon. members will say: What about Canada's part in the late war? True, Canada did magnificently in the late war; but it was fully three years after the war had commenced that Canada was prepared for war; that she was prepared to strike as an independent country should be if it is going to be able to stand as an independent nation, and apparently hon. members desire that Canada should stand as an independent nation.

I should like to bring to the attention of the House a comparison between the achievements of the forces of Canada and the forces of that great republic to the south of us during the last hundred days of the war, for the purpose, not of reflecting upon that great republic, but of showing what can be accomplished by a country with a trained army and what is accomplished by a country which is not fully prepared. The United States, unfortunately for them, were three years behind Canada in entering the war, and the result was that they were not able to make the showing per capita that the Canadians were able to make. I should like to give a few figures of the numbers engaged, the casualties, and the success achieved during that period. For instance, during that time the Americans bad 650,000 troops engaged; the Canadians, 105,000. The Americans were engaged during 47 days of operations; the Canadians, 100 days. The battle casualties of the Americans were 100,000; of the Canadians, 45,830. The prisoners taken by the Americans were 16,000; by the Canadians, 31,537. Guns captured by the Americans numbered 468; by the Canadians, 623. Machine guns captured by the Americans numbered 2,864; by the Canadians, 2,842. Trench mortars captured by the Americans numbered 177; by the Canadians, 336. Territory freed by the Americans covered 610 square miles; by the Canadians, 336 square miles. Villages freed by the Americans numbered 150; by the Canadians, 228. German divisions met and defeated by the Americans numbered 46; by the Canadians, 47. Casualties per German division /defeated by the Americans numbered 2,170; by the Canadians, 975. The maximum advance by the Americans was 34 miles; by the Canadians, 86 miles. These favourable results were made possible only by the fact that the Canadians had benefited by the experience of training and hard fighting during the previous years. My point is this: Is there any one here who will take the responsibility of denying the youth of our country an opportunity of learning the lessons learned by the men who took part in that war? Is there any one who would take the responsibility of unnecessarily exposing the youth of succeeding generations to useless slaughter when by taking full advantage of the lessons learned we could prepare them to take their part in any operations which may become necessary in the future?

Defence Forces
We hear much talk about Canada being an independent nation. The Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) the other evening asked whether we were going to go back one hundred and fifty years and become Crown colonists to be looked after by Great Britain and not by ourselves. We hear a great deal of talk about Canada's responsibility as a nation. We hear it vehemently stated that we are an independent nation, independent of Great Britain and of all other countries. I suggest that we should not deceive ourselves. We have no army in this country; we have no forces which can be counted upon even to defend ourselves. We are sponging to-day, as we have in the past, upon the Mother Country, both for defence and for possible offence. We are absolutely dependent upon Great Britain for our protection both on land and sea.
We in this country are not preparing for war. The proposal has never been made by the Minister of Militia or by any member of this House that we should prepare for war. If we were to prepare for war it would require for a period of years a vote of at least fifteen times the amount which it is proposed to make for annual training. We could not actively prepare for war on a vote of less than $150,000,000 per annum over a period of years. That was conclusively proven during the late war by the operations in which the Canadians took part. The ex-service men in this country resent the suggestion that by training and passing on these lessons we are preparing for war. They resent still further making a political football of the issue of national defence in Canada. We have had in cnis House the sorry spectacle of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) opposing in the past estimates for the purposes of the militia, and this year bringing down similar estimates as a part of Government policy. We have heard him protesting against Canada having a reserve of ammunition for her guns, Attempts have been made during the past six months to make political capital out of the bringing into this country of a few shells which already belonged to Canada, and which would have been wasted if we had not taken them. Those shells, Mr. Speaker, which we have wasted so much time in talking about, could be fired in one hour by the artillery of Canada to-day. Yet the Prime Minister has spent twenty or thirty hours in talking about those shells. With regard to their cost, even if we had been called on to pay for them, the
amount required would not exceed the amount which was required to supply our guns for one day during the last hundred days of the war. I venture to say that the forces which are lining themselves up today to oppose training consist of those who are uninformed, and in that class I have no hesitation in placing the Prime Minister himself. Secondly, I would include those who would profit by disruption in this country and by the disintegration of constitutional government in Canada.
It has been suggested that a break in the training of our militia for a period of one year or more would do no harm.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the hon. member is not in order in discussing on a motion to go into Committee of Supply the question of annual training, which has already been referred to a Committee of the Whole House.


John Arthur Clark: I do not propose to discuss the question of annual training. I think the hon. member is mistaken. Possibly I did refer to annual training, but I intended to refer to it only in its broad aspect and in connection with the militia as a whole.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think every one is
familiar with the old rule of the House of Commons, that a motion to go into Supply is the occasion for any hon. member to present his grievances. "No Supply without redress of grievances," is the old standing rule of British parliamentary government, and when a motion is made: That the Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Supply,-any member can rise and discuss any grievances which he may have. I will read to the House the comments made on this point by Bouri-not, based, I may say, on May, the highest authority on parliamentary procedure:
The order of the day for the House to go into committee of supply having been read, the Speaker will put the question "That I do now leave the chair."
That is the question now before the House. He goes on:
The same question is always put whenever the house is to go into committee of supply, in order to afford an opportunity to members to propose amendments. On this point it is observed by an eminent authority that the ancient constitutional doctrine that the redress of grievances is to be considered before the granting of supplies, is now represented by the practice of permitting every description of amendment to be moved on the question for the Speaker leaving the chair, before going into committee of supply or ways and means.

Defence Forces

Further on he says:
The ordinary rules of dehate are applicable on this occasion; for instance, a matter already decided by the House, or of which notice has been given, or which stands upon the orders of the day, cannot be discussed; nor can any subject or matter of detail which should be discussed in committee, be debated on these occasions ; nor can debate or amendment be permitted relating to grants already agreed to, or to resolutions which will be proposed in the committee, or in the committee of ways and means, or to items in the estimates.
In the present instance I do not find the point of order is well taken, because the hon. member is speaking on the necessity of maintaining our militia on its present footing, and his remarks are of a general character. If he were speaking of the estimates of the Militia Department which were under discussion last week, he would be clearly out of order; but so far I think he is in order, and such is my ruling.


John Arthur Clark: I was dealing with the assertion that a break in the training will do no harm. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that such a break, even of one year, will do an irreparable injury to the militia. We have to-day a large class of returned officers and non-commissioned officers who, under great pressure, have been persuaded to stay with the militia, to teach our youth the lessons learned and so pass on to them their own first-hand knowledge acquired at the front. Many of these officers and non-commissioned officers have already quit the militia in utter disgust because they are not receiving that encouragement which they might reasonably expect to receive; and although others are remaining, they are becoming discouraged by the apathy with which they are faced. Those men feel that while they performed a certain duty in fighting for their country, there is still the all-important duty for them to perform of passing on the knowledge gained at the front. That is why they are prepared to remain with the militia at their own expense and at great personal sacrifice.
There is also this danger, that should a man drop out of active training for even a short time, he rapidly loses touch and would soon be classed among those soldiers who in the late war were known as "dug-outs". I do not use that term disparagingly, because it applied to a very large class of retired ex-officers who promptly came forward at the outbreak of war and gave their services to their country. But if our men do not continue their training they soon get out of touch with the latest
fMr. Speaker.]
methods of offence and defence and their usefulness is to that extent impaired.
I need not enlarge upon the patriotic effect that a little training will have upon our youth, or upon the improvement in their physical well-being. I think we can compare the individual with the nation, because after all our nation is only a combination of individuals. We may very well take the example of the boy at school. How much prouder we are of a boy who is brought up to defend himself and to be proud of his physical well-being-of the boy who is not "too proud to fight," to use an expression we have heard a good deal in the last few years.
The proposals which had been before this House in the past are merely to enable us to maintain and train a nucleus of instructors so that if we are called upon to take our part in any future war we will have the few men necessary to instruct the large body of recruits that will constitute our army. The fact that this country is spending less per capita on its military training than any other country in the world, including all the British Dominions, is surely proof that we are not preparing for war. Certainly there is no class in this country less imbued with the idea that we should prepare for war than that class which at present compose our militia and ex-service men generally throughout the country.
How are our militia units maintained? It is generally supposed, I imagine, that our officers, non-commissioned officers and men are being paid by the country for their militia services. In the past they have received, it is true, a small grant for their training, but the money which has been granted has been returned to the units so that they may efficiently "carry on" with their training. The farmers of this country have benefited by that grant, because from it are purchased the supplies used in the military camps.
Now, Mr. Speaker, before I close these remarks-*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Arthur Clark: I know it is distasteful
to some hon. members to hear our national defence discussed. I know also that there are many members here who probably disapprove of Canada's participation in the late war. But I felt it my duty to give hon. members-at least, those on the Liberal side-an opportunity of considering this matter, because I understand that a caucus will be held tomorrow when they will decide

Defence Forces
whether they are going to scrap the militia or not, and before they do so I thought I should at least place the matter before them as squarely as I could, even although they do not appear to be prepared to listen to my arguments. At any rate, I feel that I have done my part. But I should like to congratulate the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) upon the manly stand he took on this subject when the estimates of his department were being discussed. I should like also to express my sympathy with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) and other members of his party who do not see the benefits and advantages of a limited defence force, because I quite appreciate that they have been taught in the past, and have apparently grown to believe, that in principle any expenditure on the militia is wrong. Their own leader sought to teach them that. Therefore is it any wonder that to-day, even though their own party now brings down as Government policy certain estimates, those hon. members are not convinced by such a sudden change of front, and bring forward the amendments that were proposed last week? I would like to see the Liberal party consider this question from the point of view of the national honour of this country. It is a national question; and I hope that if they do meet in caucus before the estimates again come up for discussion, they will seriously reflect before accepting any compromise proposed by men so ill-informed on the subject as the member who moved the amendment to the item which we were discussing the other evening. I believe that the militia estimates which the Government have brought down have been pared to the bone; and if any criticism can be offered in regard to the manner in which the Government has dealt with them, it is that they have been too niggardly rather than too extravagant in their proposals.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence): Mr. Speaker, I will not discuss questions which will more appropriately be dealt with in Committee of the Whole. But I want to say in defence of the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), that he won distinction in the war, he won the right to take any position he likes on this question. And I have every respect for his opinion. So far from being misinformed, he is a man who is fully informed. We may disagree on details, but I want to point out that the member for Quebec South is in a position, through years of service on his own part and on the
85i
part of other members of his family, to speak on military matters.
As to the caucus, I am afraid my hon. friend (Mr. Clark) cannot get in, and if he did, he might not stay long. However, the Liberal party, notwithstanding anything that has been said on the estimates is here as a unit to do what it thinks is in the interests of this country, and it will emerge from all the criticism with credit to itself and to the men in it, no matter what their individual views may be. I do not want to say a cross word to my hon. friend, but if he wants to go back to the time when people were taking peculiar positions,
I would refer him to the year 1911, when he was standing side by side with the men who did not want to do anything for the British Empire.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-salaries, $5,620,000.
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: Mr. Chairman, it will be observed that there is a reduction of $505,000 as compared with the amount appropriated last year. On page 24 of the Estimates it will be noted that last year $625,000 was voted for salaries and contingent expenses of the Board of Pension Commissioners. During the year the activities of the Board of Pension Commissioners were, to a very large degree, merged with those of the 'Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-estaplish-ment, and this year for the same
4 p.m. service only $71,000 is asked for, being a reduction of $554,000. Adding to this the $505,000, therefore, the reduction in appropriation for salaries this year is over $1,000,000.


Mr. MANION:: How much of the $625,000 was spent last year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: In round figures, $500,000. After careful consideration of the whole matter and consultation with the officials of the department, we have come to the conclusion that a further reduction may be effected so far as provision for salaries is concerned. Therefore, I would move, that the item of salaries be reduced by $195,000. It is the opinion of the officials, and of myself, after surveying the field, that we will be able to meet all our obligations even after this reduction is made.


Robert James Manion: I commend my hon. friend for cutting down all the expenses

Supply-Re-Establishment
that he can, but I would ask him if the reduction is not entirely due to the fact that the work of the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment is lessening owing to the condition which prevails-that is that most, or a great many, of the men have been attended to medically, and from a vocational standpoint, and that there has been lessening in other branches of the work? I would like to have my hon. friend's opinion upon that point. *


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend is partly right in that there is a great contraction in the activities of the department. That applies especially to the vocational training. My hon. friend was not in the House the other day when this question was under consideration, otherwise he would have heard the statement I made as to the reduction in the number of men who are actually being trained. I think the reduction is from some four or five thousand last year to six hundred this year. A great reduction in the expenditure has also been effected through the amalgamation of the staff of the Board of Pension Commissioners with the staff of the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment.


Arthur Meighen: When was that
effected?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It was effected during the course of last year. The staff, I think, was merged in the month of July.


Robert James Manion: I would like to ask my hon. friend another question. He said the cutting down of the expenditure was partly due to the natural reduction of the staff owing to the work being completed. I thought it was wholly due to that fact. If not would my hon. friend explain to the committee what the other part of the reduction, in addition to the natural reduction because of the lessening of the work, is due to?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I explained to my hon. friend that there was a reduction due to the fact that some of the activities of the department were lessened, also that a reduction was effected owing to the amalgamation of two important staffs.


Robert James Manion: I quite understand, but the point I was trying to make was exactly what the minister has pointed out-that the reduction is due to the natural lessening of the work that is going on in the department. What I wanted to make clear was that there was no real cutting down in these expenditures due to any special

economies. The reason I want to make that point clear is, not in order to establish that my hon. friend has not made any special reductions, but because I do not believe this is a department that can par

ticularly stand reductions, except where the lessening of the work permits of that being done.


Arthur Meighen: I presume the cost per capita will be greater now than it formerly was on account of fewer men being taken care of?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am informed that the cost has not materially increased-


Arthur Meighen: Not materially increased?


Henri Sévérin Béland: -and that high salaried officials are being let out, although not in as large number as the lower salaried officials.


Arthur Meighen: I presume they were let out last year, too?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No doubt there was a reduction last year.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Does not the minister think the time is approaching when it would be safe and proper to amalgamate the department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment with some of the other departments of government-perhaps in somewhat the same manner as was done in the case of the departments of naval service and militia? When the department was created during the war, it was understood by everybody that it was a department for purely war purposes and would not continue indefinitely. The work at the time of the creation of the department was enormous, but I suppose that in 1917,	1918 and 1919 that work
had reached the peak. I do not know what the estimates for those years were but I observe that the amount for the year 192021 was $40,000,000. For 1921-22 it had come down to $19,307,000; and for this year the estimate has again come down to $15,148,000. From these figures one can see that the work of the department is contracting, and rapidly contracting, each year. Now, will the minister consider the question of wiping out the department, or, at all events, amalgamating it with some other department of government? The time cannot be far distant when the work of this department will be finished, just as the work of the Soldier Settlement Board will be finished. The work of the Pension Commission, I suppose, will go on for many

Supply-R e-Esta blishment
years to come; but the number under vocational training has gone do>wn from 4,000 last year to, in round numbers, 600 this year. Next year I would think that work would be completed. Perhaps the minister could give the committee some information as to what, in his opinion, would be the approximate time when this department might cease to exist? It is an extra department of the Government and was only created for the purposes of the war. Some day the purposes of the department will be finished. As the expenditure this year is doiwn to $15,000,000 I would chink the time is not very far distant.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I cannot state even approximately when the Department of Soldiers' -Civil Re-establishment should disappear in some other branch of the ministry. Undoubtedly that day will come; the activities of the department have decreased in a large measure. But my hon. friend will note that those activities have decreased mainly in those branches of the work for which a certain period had been set after which no applications could be received-as for example in the case of vocational training. In that case, 1st February, 1920, was the date fixed after which	no application could be received, unless it was from a man who had been on the strength of the department in one of our institutions. As far as the patients are concerned, it is almost impossible to give anything like an exact idea as to when this activity will come to an end. The number of patients now being treated by the department is almost as large as it was a year ago, there is a difference only of about 400 out of 5,000 to 6,000, and the probability is that the decrease in the number of patients on our hands in the future will be very small indeed. A number are developing into chronic cases. Eventually the country will have to provide for them in some institutions other than regular hospitals. Among those chronic cases I might mention the mental cases, which ultimately will have to be dealt with perhaps in a different manner from the way they are being dealt with at the present time. Personally I would have no objection to merging this department in some other department, but I do not believe the time has yet come, in the interests of the returned men, to adopt such a course.


Hugh Guthrie: I am much obliged for the information. I quite see that, in regard to the mental cases, and the hospital cases,
the work that is being performed by the department will have to continue for a number of years. But that does not necessarily involve the maintenance of the department; the work could be carried on in connection with some other department. I assume that, perhaps, the majority of the cases in the hospital at the present time are in the nature of chronic cases. It will be the duty of Canada to look after these patients, probably, throughout their lives, and some department of the Government will have to function in the matter, and that applies to the majority of the mental cases. But it must be remembered that the Department of Militia has a hospital system of its own and is accustomed to looking after military patients, and I think it is worth while considering whether we are not now approaching the time when all the work done by this department might be handed over to the Department of Militia and carried on there without the additional expense of maintaining two departments. I will refer to the items in the present estimates on page 59. I do not know what the first item "Capital, $75,000" refers to. The second item, "Care of patients and medical examination of pensioners $4,000,000," will probably have to continue for some time, but it can be administered by another department with a great saving of expense. The next item, "Vocational expense," is decreasing to such an extent that next year, I should imagine, it will be wiped out altogether. The next item, "Salaries," I am glad to know, is coming down. I assume that that includes salaries in connection with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment hospitals that must come down very rapidly for a great many years yet to come. Then we have the item "Pay and allowances $3,500,000"; that is pay and allowances of the men who are actually in the hospitals according to their ranks. That could all be done by the Militia Department quite as conveniently as by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, with a single expenditure where a double expenditure is involved at the present time, with both departments paying these salaries. Then we have "Vocational loans $75,000." I assume that will vanish by next session. We have "Interest on war service gratuity," a very small item, which, I imagine, will vanish. Then, "Unemployment relief," is not in the nature of a fixed charge; on that score something may have to be granted for some years to come, but another department could handle that with a saving in expense. The next

Supply-R e-Esta blishment
item is "Operating expenses and working capital $700,000." I am not sure to what that item applies, but I notice there is a substantial reduction in it. It is more than cut in two, showing that it is rapidly diminishing, and will some day, I hope, reach the vanishing point. In the whole list there is no work, I submit, which could not be performed by the Militia Department, which has hospitals accustomed to the care of patients. Their pay staff is organized for the purpose, the main items could all be taken care of, and the department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, which was only temporarily adopted in this country, would soon come to the vanishing point and a large overhead would be saved to the country. I know the minister is quite reasonable in his view of the matter and will not prolong the existence of the department a day more than is necessary. I would like to impress upon him the desirability of bringing it to an end as soon as possible, because the whole department as now constituted can, I believe, be well administered by another department and the expense of one department be saved to the country.


Mr. ROSS:: (Kingston) : I wish to say a few words in regard to the salaries. I will only refer to one branch. There is a reduction here of $500,000 in salaries, but I am sorry to see that that is taken off one very important class, namely the nursing class. The bonus has been taken off the nurses this month and last month. There has also been taken off the nurses $40 a month for board, and on that $40 a month the nurses are paying income tax. I would ask the minister to consider their case. If the bonus is taken off, then I think the Government might, at least, remit the income tax on that $40.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no change in
this regard. The nurses are being paid to-day in the same way as last year or the year before. I am informed that a certain amount was always kept from their salaries for board, and my hon. friend has, perhaps, in mind the fact that the bonus was not paid last month. I think that is the case with every civil servant, because this question does not appear to have been settled definitely by the Government. Should the Government decide to grant the bonus for this year, of course the bonus for last month will be paid as previously.


Arthur Edward Ross: Would the hon.
minister consider the question of the income tax to which I referred?
I Mr. Guthrie.]


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am afraid my hon.
friend will have to direct his remarks to my colleague the Minister of Finance.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I was not in the
Chamber when item 291, "Salaries, $5,620,000", was under discussion. Does that include salaries in the different branches throughout Canada? I understand this does not include the salaries at head office.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This covers all salaries
except those under civil government, for which a sum of. over $30,000 has already been voted.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How many are there on the staff in Montreal under pay who come under this item?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My bon. friend knows that the country is divided into so many units. There is a unit known as the Quebec unit, with headquarters in the city of Montreal. That, apparently, is what my hon. friend refers to?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes.


Henri Sévérin Béland: At Montreal, we had, for the province of Quebec, on 31 December, 1921, a staff of 518. That would include, of course, Ste. Anne Hospital, Ste. Agathe Sanatorium, and the inspectors at headquarters, Montreal. Does my hon. friend desire to know the number of medical doctors in attendance?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In addition to the 518, there would be some medical doctors?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, this comprises all.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is the average number of patients cared for by that 'staff of 518?	,


Henri Sévérin Béland: In that unit, we have Ste. Anne Hospital, with a total of 474 patients; Ste. Agathe Sanatorium, with a total of 117 patients; and I think, in Quebec, we have also a feW patients in one of the hospitals. We have besides that, in some of the institutions of Montreal, a certain number of patients.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister does not know the total for the whole province?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not believe I have under my hand the exact number for the whole province. Of course, there is a large number of outside patients besides those who come into our clinics.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The facts brought out would indicate that there is, on an 'average,

Supply-Re-Establishment
practically one man on the staff for every patient that is treated.


Henri Sévérin Béland: If you take the whole unit, my hon. friend is right.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the minister not think this is an indication of overmanning of the staff? What would the average salary of the 518 people be? The reason I am asking this question is that my information is that the department is very much overmanned, and that there should be a great reduction of staff. The minister's answers to my questions would indicate that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The average salary of the men in our employ throughout the country is about $1,200. In the particular unit to which my hon. friend has referred, the Quebec unit, we have, of course, a large number of doctors in the service. It will be of interest, perhaps, for hon. members to know that not only are patients being treated in out hospitals and clinics, but we have to make examinations throughout the province for the Pension Board. That work requires quite a large number of physicians. I have in my hand a list of the men who are employed in that unit and, for that matter, of those who are employed in every unit in the country, with their salaries. My hon. friend will realize that the doctors would naturally receive a fairly large salary, though not running, on an average, much over $3,000,-perhaps, less than that. The same staff also looks after vocational training and the different activities of the department where medical services are required.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Are the medical men all on salary, or does the department have different local doctors who do some of this examination work?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have for reasons of economy, also local doctors, whom we call doctors in the field, who, make examinations of pensioners or of men who seek treatment. We have, for instance, in the Quebec unit with headquarters at Montreal, 30 men in the field. In the unit of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, with headquarters at Halifax, we have 99 men in the field. In the unit of Kingston, we have 43 men in the field; in the unit of Toronto, 68 men; in the unit of London, Ontario, 31 men; in the unit of Winnipeg, 57 men; in the unit of Regina, 14 men; in the unit of Calgary, 42 men; in the unit of Vancouver, 72 men; a total of 456 doctors in the field.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: On salary?


Henri Sévérin Béland: They are not paid
regular salaries; they are paid by a fee for each case.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do the doctors who are paid fees come under this appropriation?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will the minister give the number on the staff under pay in the different units, and the number of patients?


Mr. MARTELL:: Will the minister at the same time give the number on the staff at Toronto, and the number of patients?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The figures which I give now represent the staff in each unit for all possible activities connected with the department, comprising treatment, inspection, examination in the field, orthopedic and surgical appliances' branch, unemployment relief, and training:
Staff
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince
Edward Island unit	 395


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is all in the
Halifax office?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.
Quebec unit, headquarters at Montreal.. 5X8 Eastern Ontario unit, headquarters at
Ottawa	 338
Central Ontario Unit, headquarters at
Toronto	1,159
Western Ontario unit, headquarters at
London		369
Manitoba unit, headquarters at Winnipeg. 186 Saskatchewan unit, headquarters at
Regina	 74
Alberta unit, headquarters at Oalgary ..	375
British Columbia unit, headquarters at
Vancouver	 374
Besides that, we have the overseas office, located in London, with a staff of twenty.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: You have no staff
at St. John, N.B., at all?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have no unit, but we have a medical and hospital staff.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How many? I do
not want to seem to delay the committee, but, due to some information I have received, I want to get the facts for the Pension Committee, and I want to get them from a reliable source.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have at Lancaster
hospital, 97 patients, with 6 doctors on full time, 2 doctors on part time, 8 nurses, 3 orderlies, and 4 technicians, making a total treatment staff of 23. We have tno dentist there. We have also the general and ad

Supply-Re-Establishment

ministrative service composed of cleaners, engineers, and so on, connected with the hospital.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: You have a travelling medical board in New Brunswick, have you not? Or do they come under the Halifax office?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think we have a
travelling board in New Brunswick for the examination of pensioners and men seeking treatment.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would the minister
give us the number of patients that come under treatment in these different units?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The total number in
hospitals is 5,930.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is the number of patients in each division or under each unit?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend, of
course, is aware that a certain number of hospitals are administered by this department, indeed, are practically owned by the department. I will give the names of the hospitals in each unit and the number of patients in each.
In Unit " A ", Quebec, we have in one hospital 474, and in the other 117 patients:	Unit " B ", in the maritime provinces: Camp Hill hospital, 309 patients; Jordan Memorial, 36; Lancaster hospital, 97. Unit " C ", Ottawa district: Sydenham hospital, Kingston, 238 patients; Mowat Memorial Sanatorium, 82. Unit 'D", Toronto: Euclid Hall, which is for incurable tubercular cases, 26 patients; Christie Street hospital, 548 patients; and Brant House, 264. Unit "F", London, Ontario: Erie hospital, 7 patients; Westminster hospital, 408. Unit "G", Winnipeg, Manitoba : 69 patients, in Deer Lodge hospital. Unit "I", with headquarters in Calgary, Strathcona hospital, 168 patients; Sunny-side, 38; Colonel Belcher hospital, 117; and Central Alberta, 67. Unit "J", Vancouver: Shaughnessy hospital, 223 patients. The total number of patients of 3,288.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think you missed the Regina unit.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am informed that we have no hospital in Regina, but we have a sanitarium in Saskatchewan, at Fort Qu'Appelle, with 77 patients. I do not know whether by hon. friend wants a list of the tubercular cases in each sanitarium.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would that be in addition to the figures read?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do they come under the treatment of the staffs as enumerated here?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would like the number of patients in each unit, if possible.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Tubercular cases at
Kentville, Nova Scotia, 144; St. John county hospital at East St. John, 15; Mountain hospital, Hamilton, 110; Mus-koka Cottage, Gravenhurst, 18; Calydor sanatorium, Gravenhurst, 11; Queen Alexandra, London, Ont., 182; in Manitoba, at Ninette sanatorium, 72; King Edward sanatorium, Winnipeg, 2; Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, 77; Tranquille, B.C., 107.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What about Calgary?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have besides, a
number of hospitals with which we have definite arrangements for accommodation.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Those patients would not come under the care of your staff who are on salary? They are paid out of a different vote, are they not?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, they all come under this item.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Under the item for salaries?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is, out-patients you are caring for at private or public hospitals not under the direct supervision of the department. Do you have officials there under salary?


Henri Sévérin Béland: All salaries come under this item-all the attendants.


Lewis Herbert Martell: What are the terms
of the arrangement between the department and the provincial government of Nova Scotia with regard to soldiers who are being treated in the provincial sanitarium at Kentville?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We pay to the provincial government the cost of treatment, which is assessed evry six months.


Lewis Herbert Martell: How does that compare with the department's own cost, say, in Toronto? I understand there are about

Supply-Re-Establishment
1,100 attendants in Toronto looking after about 700 patients.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The average amount
paid to the provincial authorities for treatment in the Kentville sanitarium is $3.36 per day, and the average expense throughout Canada for the same service is $3.32.


Mr. BROWN:: In regard to the auditing and accounting branch of the department, how many are engaged in that work at Montreal, and what amount of money do they handle?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am afraid I cannot
supply my hon. friend with that information. All the money that is being paid out at headquarters in Montreal is paid, of course, through the auditing branch. As to the exact amount which goes to the unit in Montreal or anywhere else, I have not the information under my hand at the moment.


John Livingstone Brown: Certain information has
been given to me indicating that the system of accounting and auditing is rather expensive in proportion to the amount of money involved. For instance, I am informed that 23 accountants and 8 auditors handle only $194,207 in Montreal, and apparently the same condition runs all through the system. Has not the minister any figures in regard to this?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not wish to dispute
the figure quoted by my hon. friend, and of course if it is correct the staff would indeed be too large; but I am informed that a much larger amount is being paid out at Montreal.


Mr. JOHNSON (Moosejaw) :: Would the arrangement which obtains in Nova Scotia apply to all the provincial sanitaria. For instance, the sanitarium at Fort Qu'Appelle is maintained jointly by the provincial government of Saskatchewan and by public subscription.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In connection with all the sanitaria as to which we have definite arrangements we pay the cost of treatment to the provincial authorities.


Robert Milton Johnson: Is the cost per patient uniform in the various provinces?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am informed that it varies somewhat, but not very much.


Robert Milton Johnson: What is
the rate per patient at the Fort Qu'Appelle sanitarium?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think I have that information here.


Mr. SHAW:: While the information is being looked up would the minister inform me if I understood him correctly some time ago in giving the number of officials of his department in the Alberta unit as totalling 375 to look after 390 patients?
Mr. BELAND; Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Surely the minister does not mean he has that number of doctors, orderlies and others attending that number of patients? The hospitals I am acquainted with are not overstaffed, the average being eight or ten doctors and ten or twelve nurses. Contrast this number of nurses with the twenty-four nurses in the Kingston general hospital. The number of officials in each unit does not represent those connected with the treatment of patients only. What should be given is the number of doctors, nurses, orderlies, cooks and so on, connected with the hospital. For example, there is no such condition of affairs as 1,100 officials attending 700 patients in Toronto.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Of course, the committee will realize that it does not require 375 doctors to look after 390 patients; but the whole staff numbers 375. As my hon. friend has stated, only a small number of this total would represent doctors and nurses. But the number of patients to be looked after does not represent all the activities of the staff. One must bear in mind that the examination of pensioners has to be attended to all over the province, and also the examination and treatment of all outside patients who come to the clinics periodically; in addition examinations have to be made on the order of the medical director of applicants for admission to the hospitals.
The hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Johnson) asked me what was the cost per patient per day in the sanitarium in Alberta.


Robert Milton Johnson: The sanitarium at Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The last cost was $3 per day per patient.


Robert James Manion: When speaking of the members of the staff, does the minister include members of the medical profession in other cities who work part time? In my own city there is one medical man who does th'e work for the department on part time; would he be included on the staff
Supply-Re-Establishment

and would his work be covered by these figures?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Robert Milton Johnson: The minister has said that the rate per patient in Nova Scotia is $3.36 and in Saskatchewan $3. What is the reason for the difference?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is a matter of agreement and assessment between the
5 p.m. authorities of the hospital and the department. The department usually accepts the statements of the different institutions in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and item as amended agreed to.
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-vocational loans, $75,000.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: What is meant by a vocational loan?	i


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is a loan up to $500 for equipment for men who have been vocationally trained and wish to enter into certain occupations.


Robert James Manion: I notice that $150,000 was the vote last year, and in 1920-21 the appropriation was $2,000,000. Of the $150,000 of last year, how much was actually paid out by way of vocational loans?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The total was $64,118.


Mr. HANSON:: What is the experience of the department in respect to the repayment of these loans?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The loan is made against promissory notes repayable in annual instalments over a period of five years. Out of a total of 1,635 loans, 107 have been repaid.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Have a good percentage of yearly payments been met?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, about all, I think.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The fact that so many are still unpaid is no indication of default; it simply means that certain payments are not yet due?	[DOT]


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is right.


Charles Marcil: Returned soldiers who are fishermen in my constituency are desirous of obtaining loans for the purpose of carrying on their fishing operations. Has any consideration been given to that subject?


Henri Sévérin Béland: This matter was discussed last year and the year before by the parliamentary committee, and I have no doubt it will engage their attention this year also. So far, no recommendation has been made for the granting of such loans.


Charles Marcil: I hope
that this matter will be taken up seriously and something done. These fishermen work under conditions of great hardship and risk, and they are just as much entitled as farmers to any assistance that may be given.


Robert James Manion: No doubt there are many good arguments in favour of the suggestion my hon. friend makes, but if those arguments are good as applying to fishermen they are good also as applying to other classes of the community, and I presume that is where the difficulty comes in. I know that was the difficulty mentioned in the report of the committee last year. Do I understand the minister to say that the matter will come before the committee again this year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is my impression.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have received letters from returned men who enlisted under age and who did not know about the provisions with respect to applications for vocational training until it was too late. Is there any provision in the act for such cases?


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no provision, I am sorry to say.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am glad to hear the minister say he is sorry. I assume he will bring the matter before the committee and have the time extended in order that these men may have a chance.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I hope my hon. friend himself will do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
iSoldiers' Civil Re-establishment-interest on war service gratuity, $18,500.
Robert James Manion: What is the reason for the increase?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Last year the appropriation was $4,000 short, and this year the vote is larger by that amount, plus $500 to provide for increased interest.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will the minister explain what is meant by interest on war service gratuities? Are they gratuities

Supply-Re-Establishment
which the soldiers did not avail themselves of and on which the Government is paying in the interest to them?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes. These men were transferred from the Militia Department to the strength of Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment,-for treatment, for instance.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: They have not yet drawn their gratuity?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No; as long as they are not discharged from our care they are on the strength, and their gratuity is not paid to them.


Robert Milton Johnson: These
sums will ultimately have to be paid to the men?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes. The rate of interest was formerly 41 per cent; I am informed that it is now 5 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-unemployment relief, $500,000.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: How much of the
$600,000 voted last year was expended?


Henri Sévérin Béland: All but $19,000.


Charles Marcil: Was that money expended in the cities generally, or in the agricultural districts?


Henri Sévérin Béland: In both.


Charles Marcil: Largely
the cities?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Naturally.


Charles Marcil: Can the
minister give us the proportions?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am afraid I have not
that information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-Operating expenses and working ca©ital, $700,000.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I think we should
have some explanation as to why we re-1 quire $700,000 for capital expenditure now, and why that item is incorporated with operating expenses. Expenditure on capital account and operating expenses are not usually placed in one lump sum.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The word "capital"
there is perhaps misleading; it is working capital.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Then it would be operating expenses?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Well, we have a large
number of hospitals and this amount is to provide for general administrative services and expenses, such for instance as: telephones, telegrams, postage, transportation of staff, travelling expenses of staff, stationery, automobiles and insurance on same, mechanical transport expenses, advertising, legal costs, operating costs and contingent expenses, provision for financing treatment and exan^nation of Imperial and Allied ex-s'oldiers or pensioners in Canada, treatment and re-examination of Imperial pensioners in the United States, and provision for the making of advances to officers of the department subject to recovery. Amounts expended on account of the treatment and examination Of Imperial and other Allied ex-soldiers and pensioners are subject, of course, to periodical recovery from the governments concerned.


Robert James Manion: I would like to offer a suggestion. Last year when the estimates came down they contained very much more detail than appears in this year's estimates. I do not know why the details have been omitted. For example, take the item we are now dealing with, "Operating expenses and working capital, $700,000." Last year certain details were given in connection with this item, and I believe it would facilitate the passing of all these items if the same procedure were carried out. Last year the item set out "Operating expenses and working capital, cost of administration, stores, printing, stationery, transportation and travelling expenses," and then a number of other details were given occupying in all perhaps three-quarters of an inch. Last year the statement of the details for all the items occupied a little over half a page whereas this year they take up only about an inch and a half. I would suggest to the minister, and to other ministers as well, that if a few more details were given in connection with such estimates as these they would be useful to the House and would facilitate the passing of the estimates. To ask for the passing of fifteen or twenty million dollars of estimates and give details occupying a little over an inch of space 8s to unduly curtail necessary information that should be giVen. I would therefore offer the suggestion to the minister that it might be well to revert to the system of last year in regard to giving the details of such estimates as these.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no doubt my hon. friend is right in this regard. He has made a very good suggestion, and person-

Supply-Re-Establishment
ally I would 'benefit by adopting it. I intend, therefore, next year to carry out the suggestion.
Mr. MAN10N: My hon. friend may not be there next year.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Order.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it the policy of the department to continue the hospitals that are owned and operated by the department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, or will these institutions be discontinued and the patient's treated at private hospitals or 'hospitals that are publicly owned?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is the intention of the department to dispose of some of these institutions as soon as possible. That is as soon as arrangements can be definitely made for the treatment of patients in some other institutions, which would conduce to greater economy.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like to ask the minister if the department has given any consideration to the establishment of soldiers' homes for the care of indigent exservice men? I am satisfied the care of these men will have to be taken up sooner or later by this Parliament

sooner, I fear, than later-and it seems to me that not only should the matter engage the attention of this department, or some other department of the government, but that a definite policy should be laid down in respect to it-the treatment of these veterans should not be left to local charitable persons. I happen to know of a case in my own county where a man is in a state of incurable illness. I regret to say that he is a returned soldier. He has been examined by medical boards, and they say his present disabilities were not the direct result of war services, consequently they have declined to take care of him and he is now being cared for by friends. Whether the official statement is well-founded, I cannot say, but the man went overseas and has no means of support- he will have to go into an almshouse or some other institution, and I regret to say that in the province of New Brunswick there is no institution in which he can be placed. His case may be one of many, and it does seem to me that some policy should be adopted and something done to take care of cases of this kind.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This is a matter which should indeed engage the careful attention of the present administration, or of any government. As my hon. friend has said

this country will, sooner or later, have to provide homes for ex-soldiers who have become invalids. It is a problem that we should cheerfully face with the object of reaching a solution that will be creditable to the country and advantageous to the men who fought overseas.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: How many hospitals, if any, have been closed up during the past year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The following hospitals have been closed during the year 1921:
Fredericton Hospital, Fredericton, N.B., bed capacity 125.
Sir -Sandford Fleming Hospital, Ottawa, Ont., bed capacity 74.
Davisville Hospital, Toronto, Ont., bed capacity 450.
"The Hut", Hamilton, Ont., bed capacity 20.
Earl Grey Hospital, Begina, Sask., bed capacity 81.
Craig Darroch, Victoria B.C., bed capacity 110.
Esquimau, Victoria, B.C. bed capacity 136.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Employers' Liability Compensation, $175,000.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Explain.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Of the vote of $100,000 a very small amount was spent, because the provisions came into existence only in January of this year. The amount that is being asked for is estimated to be sufficient to meet the necessities of the situation in providing security for the employers who employ men disabled to the extent of 20 per cent or over. Hon. gentlemen will realize that employers will be somewhat reluctant to employ disabled men, and it is in order to make up the deficiency in pay given these men and the pay given the fit men that this vote is proposed. The parliamentary committee of last year made a special recommendation to this effect, and it was carried out by an order in council About $175,000 would cover the exigencies of the situation.


Charles Marcil: Cases have been brought to my attention in my constituency of men who went overseas and were killed, but, before being killed, were insured and informed their parents that they had taken out insurance policies on their lives. The parents claim insurance, but have nothing to show in what companies they were insured, and they think that the officers in command should be able to ascertain the name of the insurance companies. I understand the system of insurance was very general among those men coming from Quebec.

Supply-Re-Establishment


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have no information as to that. These men were insured in ordinary insurance companies before they enlisted.


Charles Marcil: No, after their enlistment, while they were at the front.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The department is in possession of no information in regard to this matter. The officials, I have no doubt, are always disposed to seek any information that may be of use in this regard, but my hon. friend will realize that it is not one of the activities of the department. It might very well come within the province of the Great War Veterans' Association or some other veterans' association, or within the province of the Militia Department. This item does not deal with soldiers' insurance.


Charles Marcil: Application was made by these people to the department, to require from those in command of the battalion information as to how this insurance was brought about and what companies it was in. This insurance was effected by the men who were in command of battalions at the front. These men wer actually in the trenches when they were insured. They were killed and their parents do not know the names of their companies. Part of their pay went to pay for the insurance, and now the parents have written to the department to ascertain by what means these companies can be compelled to make good. The claims are very fair ones.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The cases referred to
by my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) are certainly sad cases. He might refer such eases to the Militia Department. The officials there would be in a better position to procure the proper information in this regard than any one else.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions-European war and active militia, $33,000,000.
Henri Sévérin Béland: The House will be interested to know the exact number of pensions that are being paid. It will be realized that pensions are paid in respect of death and in respect of disablement. The number of pensions issued monthly in respect to disablement is 47,327; in respect to death, 19,490, a total of 66,817 pensioners in Canada. That does not include, of course, the dependents of either the disabled or the soldiers who have fallen. The last time
these estimates were before the House it was my privilege to explain that pensioners with a disability ranging between 5 and 14 per cent have the option of taking a lump sum or of receiving their pension monthly. A large number of pensioners have availed themselves of this provision and have decided to accept a final payment. The number of pensioners who have done so is 22,351 and the total amount paid in lump sums to these pensioners is $9,210,312. Besides that disabilities of a very minor nature, not over 5 per cent, are settled by the Board of Pension Commissioners regardless of the wishes of the men, and this amount is called a gratuity. Gratuities have been paid in lieu of pensions to 17,000 men, with a disability ranging between one inclusive and five exclusive, and the expenditure on this account has been $821,000. The total expenditure on pensions to date is $113,589,414.50. It will be noticed by the committee that an increase of $2,041,640,-appears in this appropriation. The amount which was voted last year was $30,958,359; but that amount did not meet the requirements of the year, because a large amount had to be paid for commutation,-the payment of the lump sum to which I have just referred,-and when the supplementary estimates for the year ended 31 March last are before the House an amount of $4,000,000 will have to be provided for that object. Therefore, in reality, there is not an increase in this item. The Board of Pension Commissioners who, as members of the committee know, are alone responsible for the awarding of pensions, expect that, with $33,000,000, they will be in a position to meet the obligations for pensions for the year just commenced.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, $71,000.
Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister has
given us the total amount of pensions paid to date. Is it possible to give the total amount paid to date in the administration of pensions by the Board of Pension Commissioners.


Charles Marcil: What is
the explanation of the large decrease in this item,-$554,000?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend was, perhaps, not in his seat when I first gave this explanation. It comes from the fact that the staff of the Board of Pension Commis-
Supply-Re-Establishment

sioners was transferred to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment during the course of last year.
Mr. MARC1L (Bonaventure) :	What
are the names of the commissioners?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Col. Thompson is Chairman of the Board. The commissioners are Dr. Davis and Dr. McQuay.


Charles Marcil: Has the
minister given any consideration to the idea of having the province of Quebec represented on the commission?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have.


Charles Marcil: What is
the result of his consideration?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My cogitations have not yet come to an end. As regards the question of the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), I will give him the information to-morrow.


Mr. SPENCER:: What are the salaries of the Pension Commissioners?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The chairman receives $7,000 a year, and the two other commissioners, $6,000. Those salaries are fixed by statute-the Pensions Act.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister any complaint or any comment to make as regards the efficiency of the board and its staff?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The Board of Pension Commissioners is a tribunal and, in the short space of time that I have been at the head of the department, I have been unable to study very deeply the work of the board during the time it has been in operation. I have full confidence in Col. Thompson and the two other gentlemen who are associated with him; I think they are honest and impartial in their decisions. In the awarding of pensions they rely mainly upon the reports, mostly medical, which are submitted to them. The task is not an easy one; it is difficult. It may happen that, throughout the country, a certain number of pensioners receive pensions to which they are not entitled. On the other hand, it may happen that the number of men applying for pensions have been deprived of or refused such pensions or turned down when they should have been awarded pensions. The question is one of information on the part of the commissioners, and also one of appreciation on the part of the medical doctors who are in charge of the different examinations.

Medicine is not an exact science; doctors disagree in their appreciation of the same case. Some doctor may think the ailment of one particular ex-service man is to be traced to his war service, whilst another doctor will think it cannot be traced. The whole question of the awarding of pensions is summed up in this phrase-a pension is awarded to a disabled ex-service man when his disability can be attributed to his war service. The pension commissioners have to govern themselves by this principle. To say that I have not received any complaints would be not to state the facts correctly. I have certainly received a large number of complaints from men who thought they were entitled to receive a pension and who were refused the same. In reply to the remarks of my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen), I am not in a position to say if, in every case, justice has been done entirely; I am absolutely satisfied that the three commissioners have acted conscientiously in the discharge of their duties, but they are fallible like every human being.


Robert James Manion: I agree with practically everything the minister has said in regard to this matter. May I offer a suggestion regarding pensioners or those who think they should be pensioned? I believe my suggestion will probably meet with his approval, and I think it will meet with the approval of most hon. members. When men wish for another board, they should more easily obtain it than is, perhaps, the case at the present time. In other words a man, let us say, has had his pension discontinued or he has not received a pension when he thinks he should receive one, and he sometimes finds it rather difficult to obtain another board. That is, some medical board has passed upon his case and decided that he has no right to a pension, but the man is firmly convinced that he has a right to a pension. He may or may not be right; probably he is wrong, for I believe that when the board decides against the applicants, in the majority of cases the applicants are wrong. If there is any doubt on the question and certainly if there is doubt enough to enable the man to obtain from another doctor, perhaps a civilian, a letter to the effect that he thinks perhaps the man's conditon is due to war service-he should be able easily to obtain another medical board and have his case reviewed. I should like to impress on the minister what has been impressed on me many times in my capacity as a private

Supply-Re-Establishment
member of Parliament-I was not long enough minister to have it impressed upon me in that capacity-and as a medical man, and that is that these secondary boards, and boards later than secondary, should be obtained fairly easily when a man feels very strongly that he should receive a pension, or that his pension should not be cut down.


Henri Sévérin Béland: This question is now engaging the attention of the parliamentary committee, and I have no doubt a recommendation on that point will be made to Parliament at a later date.


Robert James Manion: I thank my hon. friend for that information. I did not know that the matter was being considered by the committee. I understand that the pension commissioners also handle Imperial pensions. Is there any extra pay to the commissioners for that work? Or under what conditons is it done?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The department administers the Imperial pensions, and is paid three per cent of the amount paid out in pensions. That amount is turned over to the Receiver General.


Robert James Manion: No extra salary is paid to the pension commissioners for their work in connection with Imperial pensions?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister has said that a large part of the staff of the pension commissioners has been taken over by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. Does the Pension Board retain any medical men on its staff, and if so, how many?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, eleven or twelve
officers.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is that all the staff the board has?


Henri Sévérin Béland: They have a clerical
staff of 21 I think.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does this $71,000 pay the salaries of these 11 medical men and the whole staff of the board?


Henri Sévérin Béland: With the exception of the commissioners; I shall presently ask for a vote for the commissioners' salaries.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the minister
think the board can carry on as effectively with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment practically controlling the whole staff, with the exception of a few
medical men, as it did formerly? I have found it something of a problem even to get a man's file from the Pension Board.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The merging of the two staffs thoroughly would take a few months of course. It may be that my hon. friend has experienced some difficulty in regard to files in the past, but this difficulty is being straightened out rapidly, and I believe there will be greater efficiency in the future than in the past, when the work was done by two different staffs.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do the commissioners themselves think the present arrangement is a good one?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not informed to the contrary.


Arthur Meighen: I presume the minister is aware that these three commissioners are all returned soldiers, that two of them are doctors with previous public service as well, and that the chairman is a lawyer of very brilliant and very severe and trying war service himself.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is right.


Charles Marcil: In putting the question I put a moment ago with regard to representation of the province of Quebec on the board, I want it to be understood that I did not want to detract in any way from the merits of the commissioners; but as this is a bilingual country and there is a large number of people dealing with the board of French origin and using the French language, I think we should keep up the time-honoured custom of giving representation on these important tribunals to the minority of the Canadian population. It was for that reason I called the attention of the minister to the fact that the province of Quebec had at the present time no representation on this board, and not for the purpose of criticizing in any way the conduct of the present commissioners.


Donald Sutherland: Surely my hon. friend would not ignore the minister at the head of the department.


Charles Marcil: I understand that the board is entirely independent of the minister.


Arthur Meighen: I agree generally, indeed cordially, with what the hon. member for Bonaventure says. I was of the impression-I may be wrong-that at one time there was a French Canadian on the board. There have been several resigna-
Supply-Re-Establishment

tions from the board because the duties were such that the commissioners entrusted with them felt the remuneration was not sufficient, and new ones were appointed. It is not always the easiest matter to get an appropriate man for a post of this sort. The feeling among the returned men is such that the appointee has virtually to be a returned man. Then he has to be a man with the experience-medical better than any other, except for the chairmanship- and also of some measure of business experience; and besides he must be willing to act. He must be a man of such standing as to command authority in his position. It is not always the easiest matter to get a man of that sort ready to take office. I remember, there was one-I shall not give his name, I do not think I should be asked to-who was pressed for appointment to this post. So far as political allegiance was concerned, everything that could be said was in his favour, but it was felt that the qualifications were not there. There was no other reason in the world why there was not a French Canadian appointee on this board. I agree with the hon. member for Bonaventure that if it can be done it is better, even though it is not essential as respects either English or French, that there should be representation of both races on important boards.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-unemployment relief'

further amount required to give effect to provisions of Orders in Council, P.C. 1615, dated the 13th of May, 1921, and P.C. 75, dated the 16th of Januay, 1922: and to provide for salaries and other expenses of administering the provisions of said Orders in Council (Governor General's Warrant, January 16, 1922), $1,500,000.
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister state what machinery is employed for the distribution of this relief; when it operated; and the amounts distributed, geographically among the provinces, as fully as he can?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The information will
cover operations for the last year. I have not exact details of the relief administered for the period extending from the first of January this year.
Unit A, Montreal, 1,742 men; relief granted, $178,000
Unit B, Maritime provinces, 485 men; relief granted, $43,000.
Unit C, Ottawa, 790 men; relief granted, $68,000.
Unit D, Toronto & Hamilton, 4,031 men; relief granted, $429,000.
Unit P. London, 596 men; relief granted, $38,000.
Unit G, Winnipeg, 727 men; relief granted, $71,000.

Unit H, Regina, 344 men; relief granted, $31,000.
Unit I, Calgary, 858 men; relief granted, $82,000.
Unit J. British Columbia, 1,712 men; relief granted, $184,000.
Unit K, New Brunswick, 605 men; relief granted, $58,000.
That is for the period from January 1 to May 28, 1921. There is another period from May 29 to December 31, 1921, and the figures run about the same. The consolidation of those figures shows that the number of men who received relief were classified as follows:
January 1, to May 28, 1921, 3,907 single men, 7,799 married men, 184 widowers.
May 29, to December 31, 1921, 1,392 single men, 2,796 married men, 93 widowers.
The total number of men receiving relief last year was 16,171. I am not in a position to furnish information of the number of men receiving relief at the present time.


Arthur Meighen: The minister adds those who got relief in the last period to those who got relief in the first period to arrive at his total of 16,000 men?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Would not they be the same persons?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Robert James Manion: The minister gave the number of men receiving relief in the last half of the year. What was the amount in money?
Mr. BELAND; From May 29 to December 31, 1921, $325,729; whilst for the former period from January 1 to May 28, 1921, the amount is $1,184,000.


Robert James Manion: That amounts to about a million and a half. I have not a copy of the Supplementary Estimates, but I think the amount is $1,500,000?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Robert James Manion: In the items we passed a little while ago there is a figure for unemployment relief amounting to $500,000, which, with this sum of $1,500,000, totals $2,000,000. Those two amounts are taken in together, I presume?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The $500,000 was voted for general relief and had no relation to Soldiers' Civil Re-establisbment?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Quite likely.

Supply-Re-Establishment


Henri Sévérin Béland: The million and a half we are asking for is for the last quarter from 1st January to 31st March, 1922.


Arthur Meighen: A million and a quarter?


Henri Sévérin Béland: A million and a half.


Arthur Meighen: For the three months?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My right hon. friend will notice that last year from January 1 to May 28 the amount granted for relief was $1,184,000.


Arthur Meighen: The figures run in my mind like this, and perhaps the minister will tell me if they are tolerably correct. Last year for disabled soldier relief the total was about one million and a half, and for our contribution to general relief about half a million. Then, of course, there would be the amount from the 1st January to 31st March; but I am referring to the calendar year. Does the minister say that for disabled soldier relief for the first three months of this year the expenditure has run to a million and a half?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am not sure that I can supply the exact information, it being difficult to differentiate between the calendar year and the fiscal year. The figures I have here would give for 1922 a total of $1,184,000, plus $325,000.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that is about right. It would look as if these three months were the worst we have ever had.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The last three months?


Arthur Meighen: Yes; a million and a half for three months is a very large figure.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


Arthur Meighen: It is unexpectedly large to me.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am informed that we did not have enough money to run through December, and the amount of one million and a half was to cover from 1st December of last year, while the one million and a half which is now voted is not at present all spent, though the fiscal year has started.


Arthur Meighen: We were in hopes a
year ago that we would be able to discontinue relief-if not wholly, very largely. If the Government intend to pursue the course they have pursued-namely, the course we pursued-it would be their duty to present an estimate to the House rather than follow the course of getting the money by Governor
General's warrant and a subsequent estimate.


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is difficult to foresee
the conditions of next year. We hope that next winter will not be so hard as the one just passed. I may inform my right hon. friend that an item of $500,000 was voted this afternoon for the ensuing year.


Arthur Meighen: If the Government continues the fractional divisions as to general relief, namely, paying one-half itself and putting one-sixth on the municipality of the excess cost of works, I am not very optimistic that they will meet with a less expenditure this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions-European war and active militia- further amount required, $4,000,000.
Arthur Meighen: Will the minister give us an explanation of this item, including in his information figures as to the amount voted and the amount actually spent, so as to account for this extra estimate, and, as well, what was met with that was unforeseen? The late government put in the estimate of what the Pension Commissioners felt was going to be sufficient, in the light of their experience. What turned up in the nature of unforeseen expenditure that ran so far ahead of what the Pension Commissioners deemed they would require?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Perhaps my right hon.
friend was not in the chamber when I explained this vote. The total annual liability for pensions lest year was $30,480,351. A large number of pensioners had the option of commuting their pension when their disability ranged between 5 and 14 per cent, and it is to cover such commutations that this amount is required.


Arthur Meighen: This is really money
paid in commutation of pensions, so it will mean that much less in the future?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.
At six o'clock the House resumed and then took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 6, respecting the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.- (Mr. Tolmie)-Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
[Stage Direction]
Esqwimalt-Nanaimo Ry.
The CHAIRMAN:: Mr. Neill has given notice of his intention to move:
To amend the bill by striking out the word "two" in line 8 and inserting the word "one" in lieu thereof, and by striking out the word "five" in line 15 and inserting the word "three" in lieu thereof;
To amend clause 1 by striking out all the words after the word "railway" in line 17.
To add a new clause to be known as,-
3. The securities issued by the company shall not exceed fifty thousand dollars per mile of the railway authorized by this Act and may be issued only in proportion to the length of railway constructed or under contract to be constructed.	.


Mr. STEVENS:: I could not follow you, Mr. Chairman, in the bill when you were reading the amendments.


George Newcombe Gordon: The amendments are not in the bill. They appear in a notice given by Mr. Neill which is to be found in the Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. NEILL:: I do not wish these amendments to be taken as one. If the first one passes I do not wish to bring in the other two. I only wish the first one to be discussed at present.


George Newcombe Gordon: It is moved by Mr. Neill that the first amendment be considered by the committee.


Alan Webster Neill: This amendment is the
same as the one I introduced a few nights ago-at least the effect of it will be the same. I am not bringing it forward in any spirit of obstruction. I simply believe that what transpired the other evening justifies me in again introducing this amendment to-night. Some hon. members who voted on the last occasion did not fully grasp the situation; others perhaps were absent. I feel, under the circumstances, that it is legitimate for me to introduce this amendment again. I will not waste the time of the committee by going over the arguments I used on the former occasion, but there are one or two points to which I wish to draw attention. If any hon. member will turn up Hansard and read the arguments in support of the bill passing without amendment advanced on that occasion, I believe he will be compelled to admit that there was very little solid reason given why my amendment should not pass. If hon. members will look at the speeches for and against the bill in its present form which were made the other night, they will find that there certainly was not a very strong argument advanced in favour of the measure. The amendment I ask is that the company shall begin operations within one year of the

passing of this legislation. You will observe, Mr. Chairman, that the bill as drafted does not bring this railway under the Railway Act of Canada as regards the commencement of construction. Under that act the commencement of construction involves spending fifteen per cent of the money authorized for the building of the road within a particular period. By a special clause in the present bill however, the company take themselves out of the operation of the Railway Act of Canada and therefore that section is not operative with respect to them. The effect of it is this: While they ask for two years in which to begin and five years in which to finish, the bill really gives them five years to begin, because " beginning " under the present bill means a most perfunctory operation. A few men with shovels could, in half a day, perform the perfunctory attempt at commencement which could be constructed as a commencement within the meaning of the bill. Consequently while the company ask for two years in which to begin, they are really asking for five years provided the line is completed within that time. I therefore ask that that illusive period be reduced to one year in which the company shall at least make a pretence of beginning operations. I wish to read a letter and it is only a short communication, that I have received in connection with this bill. It is one of a number of letters that I have received but I will not burden the House by reading them all. I shall just read this communication because it is a typical one:
At the last meeting of the local branch of the United Farmers of British Columbia I was authorized to write to you to ask you to use your influence in every possible way, in the coming session of Parliament, to prevent the Esquimau and Nanaimo Railway Company from getting the extension of time they are asking for. We feel very strongly here that the railway company ought to put this extension through for three reasons: Frst, it would provide a considerable amount of work for men and teams; Second, it would open up a considerable amount of country where there is much good land available for agriculture and which would be cultivated if transportation were provided at a reasonable rate; Third, if would cut down the cost of freight. At present it costs about 70 cents per hundred to haul freight from Victoria to Courtenay 145 miles, and it costs 20 cents per hundred to haul it from Courtenay to Merville by motor truck a distance of 8 miles. This disparity in cost presses very hard on the farmer. We firmly believe that this system of railway companies getting their charters extended from year to year is a most pernicious one. They ought either to build or relinquish the charter ; unless there

Esquimau-Nanaimo Ry.
is some really legitimate reason why the railway should not be built at the time.
Trusting you will give this your earnest consideration.
The communication is signed by the secretary of the association which I may mention is mostly composed of returned soldiers. I could read resolutions from boards of trade, and other organizations, but the letter I have cited is a typical illustration of the feeling in that district. It may be true, as alleged the other night, that if this railway is not built by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company it will not be built at all. That may or may not be true but at least we can give somebody else an opportunity. The other day when we western members were enjoying the hospitality of the city of Quebec-a hospitality that was given, I may say, with the grace and kindliness so characteristic of the French-Canadian people-we were shown, amongst other places the Montmorency falls, and it was a pretty sight. But I could not help thinking while we were gazing at it that the Campbell river falls along the route of this railway would produce five times the amount of electrical power. Whilst the latter falls are not so high as the Montmorency falls they have a far larger volume of water and if, as it is rumoured, there are negotiations pending for harnessing these falls, it would be a mere flea bite for that company-because they could incorporate with four or five millions-to build this jerk-water road to connect with the Canadian Pacific railway-It would pay them to build it to bring up supplies for this work. And whilst it is not an absolute fact at present we are not likely to obtain the building of the road by any other company while there is the assurance that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company will have a blanket charter over it for all time. I have no hostility towards the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in this matter nor have the people whom I represent. I will say this, however: I will withdraw all opposition to this bill going through as it is framed if the hon. member in charge of the measure will postpone any further action upon it to-night and give me a written undertaking by that company that they will really build this railway within the time limits asked by themselves. That is all we ask.
If we had this assurance, and if there were anything like a reasonable probability or possibility that this road would be built, I would cheerfully concede the extra year to begin, and the extra year to finish
86i
that road, but I am perfectly certain that that assurance will not be forthcoming. Can hon. members of this House believe that I should stand here and oppose a charter. of this kind, if there were any possibility of the road being built under it. What would my constituents think of such an act? Would I not be deluged, and would the House not be deluged, with telegrams and letters urging that I should consent to it? But the reason that these things are not forthcoming is that everything suggests that there is no probability of the line being built. I mentioned the other night the absence of the provision allowing for the issue of bonds for the road. That is an indication that they are not sincere in this matter to-night, and I think I can say without fear of contradiction that if this House passes this measure to-night, or this session-because it will not pass to-night-these people will be coming here two years hence asking for a further extension. It is not a revolutionary thing or an epoch-making thing. It is a simple amendment to give these people an opportunity to do what they declared on paper they wanted to do-to build this railway within a reasonable time.


Mr. TOLMIE:: It must be pointed out that this is only a reasonable request made by the railway company. It is quite a common thing for railway companies to do, particularly under the conditions which prevail now and have prevailed for a number of years. I do not think the railway company can be criticized for having delayed the building of the road, particularly when one is familiar with conditions in that part of Canada, and the difficulty in obtaining the material required for railway construction. This road goes through a section of country that is very rough, with very large trees, and in many cases it will require as high as one case to a case and a half of powder to blow out a single stump. It is only reasonable that the railway company should be given every opportunity to build this road at as reasonable a cost as possible. Many of the roads built in that section of British Columbia have not paid from the very beginning, on account of the tremendous outlay, the slow settlement, and the heavily timbered nature of the country. The primary reason for building the road, as I understand it, is to bring out the timber from that section of Vancouver island, and it is only after that timber is removed
Esquimalt-Nanaimo Ry.

and the land has been stumped, or partially stumped, that it will be ready for production, so that the delay in building the road will not be a very great inconvenience to the settlers in the very beginning. As to the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway giving up this charter, and it being immediately taken up by some other railway company, I think that is very improbable indeed, because the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway is the only railway in that section of Vancouver island, and if this road is to connect up and do any business, it must certainly connect up with the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway at Courtenay. As far as giving a guarantee that this railway is going to be built is concerned, I am not in a position to do anything of the kind. I have not consulted the representatives of the railway with reference to this matter. This is a big company, well-known in Canada, doing business here, it has done a great deal to open up the West, and I think we can take its word just as well as we would that of any other business organization. Under these conditions, Mr. Chairman, I think the committee should not hesitate to grant the very reasonable request of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Much as I would like to agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), who has, in this House, spoken a good word for the province of Quebec, I am obliged to dissent from the opinion he expressed in reference to the extension of this charter, which I believe is being sought for very good reasons. The hon. gentleman has -stated that not many good reasons were advanced in favour of the bill a few weeks ago when the bill was before the House. But there are many good reasons, and some *of the members on this side of the House, \wh* were not present at the committee meeting, have not had time to go fully into the facts of the case concerning this application. I do not see the harm in extending for two years more a charter to a company which everybody knows is aided by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. That railway company has built up this country and is one of the greatest railways in the world. We must consider also that there is no possibility, practically, of any other railway coming into competition with this railway or desiring to get a charter for the construction of this road. There is

also another factor. The hon. member for Comox has mentioned the possibility of immigrants, or other people from foreign lands, coming into this country, who might have to go away, because there were no possible facilities to enable them to go into the district of the Island of Vancouver which this railway is supposed to traverse. I might point out that I do not think there are very many immigrants coming from European countries who would go out very far on the Island of Vancouver, or even in the province of British Columbia. Most of these people settle in the central provinces of western Canada, and I think these people would suffer no great injury if a good company, like the one which has this charter at present, should have an extension granted for another two years. I do not hold in this House any brief, for the company which is asking for a renewal of its charter. When a company comes here supported by reliable people, and tells this bouse openly and frankly that, on accouni of certain conditions which have existed ir this country for the last two years, they have not been able to proceed with construction, an extension of a charter for twc years has never been refused. My hon. friend has spoken of 15 per cent of a certain amount which had to be expended in a certain time. I think that provision which may have been contained in other charters of. other railways, and provided for in the Railway Act, is made to prevent abuses by small companies, and people who might have charters which they wished to deal with, but not in the case of such a responsible company as the one we are dealing with. We know that it has the backing of the great institution to which I have just referred. That provision perhaps should only be invoked in the case of the Central Railway of. Canada or other railways which have existed only for a few years, where the people, who are at the head of them, are only after charters to try to bargain and make money with them. When we understand the reasons advanced in the Railway Committee on this occasion on behalf of the granting of this charter and also those propounded last week by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien), I do not see what reason this committee would have for refusing to grant an extension of this charter for two years more nor what harm there would be in granting that extension. We know this company intends to do this work when conditions improve somewhat. I am informed that

Esquimalt-Nanaimo Ry.
the construction of this part of the railway in that particular district of Vancouver Island forms part of a construction plan of a big organization; and while I do not know, it might be possible that it is not able, as my hon. friend has just pointed out, to commence immediately the construction of this part of the railway. When a company like that asks this Government and this House for an extension for two years and states that, within that period, it will probably be able to commence operations, I think we should believe the truth of its assertions and grant its request. Many members on both sides of the House, and especially on this side, are, I am sure, in favour of granting this request, and I think it would be a good move on the part of members of the Progressive party if they would support this bill and not support the amendment that the time for commencing operations be cut down to one year, as requested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I have not seen many such amendments agreed to in the last few years that I have been in the House. The Railway Committee has always taken into consideration the reasons advanced by these railway companies for renewals of their charters, and it has always granted what is fair and just. Therefore, I do not think we should make an exception in the case of this railway, but that we should give it the same terms as have been granted to many other railway companies.
The committee divided on the motion (Mr. Neill).
To amend the said bill by striking out the word "two" in line 8 and inserting the word "one" in lieu thereof.
Yeas, 70; nays, 70.


George Newcombe Gordon: I vote against the
amendment. I declare the amendment lost.
Amendment negatived.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is on the motion of Mr. Neill:
To amend the said bill by striking out the word "five" in line fifteen and inserting the word "three" in lieu thereof.


Alan Webster Neill: I intended those two amendments and the insertions to go together. It is all one amendment.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question has been put on one.


Alan Webster Neill: Owing to the feeling shown in this committee, and owing to the fact that some more hon. members have come
in since the vote has been taken, I think they should have some time to consider the question. I, therefore, move that you do now leave the Chair.
Motion negatived: Yeas, 65; nays, 84.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the amendment to strike out the word "five" in line 15 and insert the word "three" in lieu thereof, carry? I declare the amendment lost.
Amendment negatived.


George Newcombe Gordon: The question is now on the third amendment, to amend clause 1 by striking out all the words after "railway" in tne 17th line of the said bill.


Alan Webster Neill: We have not yet taken a vote on the second amendment. You divided the first amendment into two, Mr. Chairman. I have no objection to your doing that, but I think we might very profitably discuss until nine o'clock the amendment to strike out the word "five" in line 15 and insert in lieu thereof the word "three".


George Newcombe Gordon: That amendment has been declared lost.


Alan Webster Neill: We have not taken a vote on it.


George Newcombe Gordon: A vote was not asked for. The question is now on the third amendment, to amend clause 1 by striking out all the words after "railway" in line 17 of the said bill.


Alan Webster Neill: I have been accused from time to time of speaking too fast. I have determined to cure myself of that fault. The subject before us to-night is one of the most momentous that might well engage our attention. It originates as you are aware, Mr. Chairman, with Bill No. 6. The official title of that bill is " Bill No. 6, An Act respecting The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company." I see it is marked down here for its first reading on the 21st day of March, 1922, and that it has the signature of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie), who endorsed it, presumably, on its first introduction. The hon. member for Victoria, I might mention is not a resident of the district through which this railway runs, and therefore ii is natural to suppose that he is but im perfectly acquainted with the situation ol this railway in that district. It therefore becomes necessary for a humble representative of that district to go somewhat fully into the details of the situation. I address myself more particularly to the first clause (f the act, but in order that the committee
Esquimau-Nanaimo Ry.

may get a correct grasp of the situation, I will read the preamble as well.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alan Webster Neill: I resent the levity with which some hon. gentlemen are treating this serious and important subject. As the thread of my argument has been somewhat disturbed by the interruptions, I had perhaps better begin again. The preamble reads as follows:
Whereas the Esquimau and Nanaimo Railway Company has by its petition prayed that it be enacted as hereinafter set forth, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the said petition: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
Then clause 1 of the bill follows:
The Esquimau and Nanaimo Railway Company, hereinafter called "the Company," may within two years after the passing of this act commence to construct the line of railway which it was authorized to construct by section two of chapter seventy-seven of the statutes of 1920, extending from a point at or near its present terminus at Courtenay, thence in a general easterly and northeasterly direction to a point at or near Duncan's Bay on the east coast of Vancouver Island, and may within five years after the passing of this act complete the said line of railway; and if within the said periods respectively, the said line is not commenced, or is not completed and put in operation, the powers of construction conferred upon the Company by Parliament shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said line as shall then remain uncompleted.
I wish to point out a decided discrepancy between the language used in this bill and in the original act to which it refers. You will observe that this bill says that starting from Courtenay the line will proceed "in a general easterly and north-easterly direction." If we refer to the act of 1920, which is chapter 77 of George V., second session of 1920-
Mr. McMASTER; Would the 'hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member be able to speak a little louder so that we Would have the full benefit of his argument on this side of the House?


Mr. GAUVREAU:: And of his wit.


Alan Webster Neill: I am perfectly willing to yield the point, but I wish to warn my hon. friend of this. In my younger and unregenerate days I once used to drive a team of oxen and any one who has had anything to do with driving oxen will agree with me that it can only be done by a man with a very loud voice and an absolute Command of profanity. I much fear that the forte of habit is so strong on me that if I do raise my voice to the pitch required to

make myself heard, I shall inevitably slip back into the old habit. If the hon. gentleman is ready to take that risk, I am quite willing to raise my voice. I understand that the hon. member imperfectly heard my opening remarks, so I am afraid I shall once more be compelled to go over the same ground again. Perhaps, however, it would be better to go through with the thread to begin with, and then I can rehearse my opening remarks afterwards, if I get through in time.
Section 2 of the act of 1920, which was assented to on the 11th of May of that year, provides that the company may construct and operate a line of railway from a point at or near its present terminus at Courtenay-the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) is not paying attention to my remarks. Mr. Chairman, I am here to drive my points home if I have to repeat them a thousand times. You will observe that section 2 of the act of 1920 provides that this company,
-may lay out, construct, maintain and operate a line of railway from a point at or near its present terminus at Courtenay, thence in a general northerly and northeasterly direction-
You will notice that the original act says "in a general northerly and northeasterly direction," but the bill before us says "in a general easterly and northeasterly direction." Why, if this route is followed, the railway will have to be built in the gulf of Georgia, because that is the easterly direction from the point here named. We have seen many changes in the last three or four years, among them great political changes, but I do not think the direction of the cardinal points has shifted so much as is indicated In these two acts. I should like to know from the hon. member who is sponsor for this bill if he can tell me why the act in its original form describes the railway as running in a northerly direction, while the present bill has it going in an easterly direction. If the hon. member would like to make an explanation I am sure we would all be very happy to hear it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Alan Webster Neill: I am sorry the hon. member will not oblige us on such a vital point. I know that a distinction of that kind is well calculated to sway the opinions of this House.
I think I have now indicated in a general way, Mr. Chairman, what is the purport of this bill. I think I should take a point of order on this subject, for the bill purports to be an amendment to this act;

Esquimalt-Nanaimo Ry.
but it is not in ordinary fact an amendment. It has been contended, I was informed the other day by one well in a position to know, that the original act with the powers contained in section 3 is still in existence, and that this bill is an amendment to it. But I would submit to hon. members who are lawyers that that is neither good law nor good parliamentary practice. This act will cease on the 11th day of May of this year, and I cannot see how this present bill can in any sense be considered-shall I say?-as concomitant or a part of it, unless it specifically says that section so-and-so shall be amended.
To illustrate the point I wish to make. If this amending bill purported to amend section 3 of the original act by striking out the date and putting in another date two years hence, that would be perfectly proper and correct and in accordance with parliamentary practice; but when it simply says, as it does here, that it has power to build the railway mentioned in section 2 of the original act, then I submit it cannot be held to be an amending bill, and consequently the original act will disappear on the 11th day of May, 1922. What then becomes of this section in the act dealing with the bonding privileges of the company? Section 4 of the act provides:
The securities issued by the company shall not exceed $50,000 per mile of the railway authorized by this act, and may be issued only in proportion to the length of railway constructed or under contract to be constructed.
Now, Sir, that section has disappeared in the so-called amending bill. Where then is the authority to be found to obtain money to build this railway? Is it not driven home to you, Mr. Chairman, and every member here that that has been omitted because the promoters know they will not need the money? In other words, they do not intend to build the railway, and they will be coming here two years, four years, ten years hence, and then it will be time enough to put in the bonding clauses. It has been contended, as I said, that the bonding clause in the original act governs this bill; but it cannot do so, for the reasons I have pointed out, that the act is not amended specifically, this bill only alludes to it in an indirect manner, so that-


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member is dealing now with the last amendment, whereas what he should discuss is the amendment after the word "railway" in line 17, as to the time for construction and completion of the railway.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I accept your direction, and I shall be very pleased to address myself more particularly to the amendment. In my haste to get the discussion over I was going on to the third amendment, but I will now devote myself more particularly to the amending of clause 1 by striking out all the words after "railway" in line 17. That, Sir, I am sorry to say, compels me to refer to section 3 of the Railway Act again, Chap. 68 of the Statutes of Canada of the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nineteen. Perhaps I ought to read the act from the beginning.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, it is somewhat extended and I will not inflict it on hon. members. The heading of section 3 is " Construing of special acts." Subsection (a) reads as follows:
Except as in this act otherwise provided, (a; this act shall he construed as incorporate witl the special act.
I need not explain the meaning of that to hon. members. Subsection (b) provides:
Where the provisions of this act and of any special act passed by the Parliament of Canada relate to the same subject matter, the provisions of the special Act shall, in so far as is necessary to give effect to such special Act, be taken to override the provisions of this Act.
If hon. members do not understand that language it is not my fault; it is due to the peculiar legal phraseology employed. Put in plain English, it means that when a company comes to this House and brings a special railway act, it is supposed in its general lines to conform to the Railway Act of Canada, and what this special act does not specifically mention the general covers. But in this particular case they had inserted the words which I propose to strike out by that amendment. In that way the promoters are trying to take this bill out of the jurisdiction of the Railway Act, because the words that I propose to strike out read as follows:
-and if within the said periods respectively the said line is not commenced, or is not completed and put in operation, the powers of construction conferred upon the company by Parliament shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said line as shall then remain uncompleted.
To the ordinary layman, Mr. Chairman, those words would not appear to take this bill out of the jurisdiction of the Railway Act; but these provisions are always so astutely and so subtly phrased that they

Esquimau-Nanaimo Ry.
do not always mean what on the surface they appear to mean. I have my eye on it too, Mr. Chairman, and we will he a unit when it comes to nine o'clock! But, as I say, the insertion of these words, which to all appearances have nothing to do with the Railway Act, take the bill out of the jurisdiction of that act. Therefore I want to cut these words out, and then the bill would come under another section of the Railway Act, which I propose to read with your consent, Sir.
This is the same Railway Act that I alluded to before, Chap. 68 of the Statutes of Canada of the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and nineteen, in two volumes-this is the first volume. Section 161 dealing with the powers of construction of railroads and the limitation of time for construction provides:
If the construction of the railway is not commenced and 15 per cent of the amount of the capital stock is not expended thereon in survey, purchase of right of way, and actual construction work, or in the case of a branch or extension of the railway, if 15 per cent of the bond issue authorized therefor is not expended thereon in actual construction work within two years after the passing of the act authorizing the construction of such railway, branch or extension, as the case may be, or where the Parliament of Canada grants an extension of time for commencing such contraction within the time so granted, or if the railway, or branch or extension, as the case may be, is not completed and put in operation within five years from the passing of such act, or where the Parliament of Canada grants an extension of time for completion within the time so granted, then the powers granted by such Act or by this Act shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the railway, or branch or extension, as the case may, as then remains uncompleted.
The common sense interpretation of that section is that the Railway Act of Canada specifies that a railway shall within two years commence construction and by construction is meant spending 15 per cent of the amount authorized of the bond issue for the building of that road or branch to be extended. Incidentally, I would like to ask, how does this railway company expect to arrive at this 15 per cent when they have not taken any authority to issue bonds? One can come to no other conclusion than that the bill is intended only as a stop-gap. My object in moving this amendment is to make the company come under the operation of the Railway Act of Canada, by striking out the words I have alluded to in clause 1 and putting nothing in their place. The company would then become obliged, under section 161, to spend 15 per cent of the capital cost of the railway in commencing operations 
within any period decided upon. So that while the House has decided, by the vote of the Chair-I should think the case almost unique in Canada-that this company shall have two years within which to commence operations, under the bill as introduced they have practically five years, because they do not really need to do anything definite in the way of commencing. A man can go out before breakfast with a shovel and do enough work to call it " commencing construction." I knew of a company which started construction in that way: they fulfilled the contract by stealing a couple of rails from a coal mine siding and laying them out along the route. Thar gave them three years more in which to carry on. It is to prevent something of that kind that my amendment is formulated. If this amendment passes, and the company, by the action of the committee tonight-I trust it may be only for to-night, for I presume there will be other opportunities of bringing the question up; as hon. gentlemen grow older, it is customary for them to grow wiser. We saw how the vote went last week; give us a little time and we will sweep this amendment through the House, probably by a unanimous vote. But I have got off the thread of my remarks.


Mr. VIEN:: I rise to a point of order. Rule 18, paragraph 2, provides that a member who talks for the purpose of gaining time may be ruled out of order. The hon. member clearly intimated his intention of talking the matter out until the clock should strike nine. Moreover, his arguments for the last ten minutes have been a tedious repetition, which brings them under the wording of Rule 18.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I presume that is debatable.


George Newcombe Gordon: I understand that the hon. member wishes to speak to the point of order.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member (Mr. Vien) has referred, I think, to rule 18. To what book of rules does he refer? Is it Bourinot? There is a great divergence of authorities as to points of order. There is May, and there is Bourinot, and there are several others which I do not recall at the moment.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would point out to the hon. member that this rule is definitely indicated. It is rule 18, clause 2.

Supply-Pensions


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, here it is:
Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech.
I submit that I have not deviated from the amendment under discussion. I may have said in a jocular way that the discussion would end at nine o'clock, but is that not so? Is not that the rule of the House? I submit that my remarks were relevant to the amendment at the very moment when the hon. member for Lot-biniere interrupted me. Is it not desirable that this railway company should be brought under the operation of the Railway Act, thus preventing it from going out and doing the so-called commencement work in an afternoon with a shovel-
Some lion. MEMBERS: Order.


Alan Webster Neill: I am speaking to the point of order. I also have rights in this House, Sir. I call your attention to rule 19, which says that no member shall use offensive words against any other member of the House.


George Newcombe Gordon: While it may be said that the hon. member is, perhaps, at the point of divergence from relevancy to the matter under discussion, I think I should give it as my opinion that the point of order is not, under the circumstances, well taken.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your decision. While you may be a little shaky on an even vote, you are all right in your rulings. It is very embarrassing to be interrupted in this way by hon. members; it quite destroys the thread of my argument. I think I have made my case good; clearly it is desirable to pass this amendment so that my constituents will have at least the satisfaction of knowing that this company will pay out 15 per cent of the construction costs during the period decided upon. That is a substantial concession, but it is a reasonable one.


George Newcombe Gordon: Order. I
9 p.m. draw attention to the fact that the hour for private bills has expired. Shall the committee have leave to sit again?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.

The House again in committee of supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.



PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
Pensions-European war and active militia, further amount required, $4,000,000.
Robert James Manion: When the Committee
took recess at six o'clock I was about to ask the minister one question in regard to this item. He mentioned a sum of $4,000,000 as being for the commutation of pensions, and he spoke of this as lessening the expense of this year. But I notice that in addition to that sum there is also asked for this year $33,000,000 which makes a total of $37,000,000 as compared with $30,000,000 in the regular estimates of last year. Will the minister explain why there is an increase of expenditure if the amount paid for commutations effected a decrease? That is what I do not understand.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Perhaps my hon. friend did not thoroughly understand the explanation given. The $4,000,000 which are now being asked for, are not for the current year 1922-23 but for the year that is just ended.


Robert James Manion: Then $4,000,000 is in addition to the $30,000,000 of last year.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Department of Trade and Commerce- Bounty on linen yarn spun in Canada from Canadian flax, including expenses of supervision ; under Orders-in-Council of September 3, 1918, and June 30, 1920, $26,000.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: We would like to have a little information in regard to this item? Will the minister tell us exactly what this expenditure involves?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This is the last year of these grants towards the cultivation of flax and the manufacture of linen yarns in Canada. The act under which assistance was granted was to run for three years, and this is the last year we make payments under the system adopted by the supervisors. The amount paid last year was about four thousand odd dollars but we have not received all the returns from the mills. We are asking for the same amount that was established last year.


Milton Neil Campbell: I think this item should be held over until we get a little
1362	COMMONS
Supply-Trade and Commerce
more information. The details given to us by the minister are not very complete.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend desires any further information I am quite prepared to give it to him. He will notice there is no change in this vote. So far there is only one company receiving bounty, the Dominion Linens Limited of Guelph and the expenditure has been as follows: In 1920-21 on 139,796 pounds, bounty was paid of $5,096.11. The cost of supervision was $150.40. This bounty, as I have already told my hon. friend, was authorized under the War Measures Act to run for three years from April 1, 1919, and later was changed by Order-in-Council to run for three years from April 1st, 1920, so that it will expire in 1923.


Milton Neil Campbell: Are we to understand that this is a re-appropriation?


James Alexander Robb: The appropriation has to be voted each year, and in accordance with parliamentary procedure if the money is not earned within the year ending March 31st, it lapses and returns to the Treasury, but it must be voted each year.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps I can explain this item because I know something about it. It so happened that in the summer of 1918 it was impossible in Canada to get linen yarns. It was also impossible in Canada to get those classes of material into which linen yarns are manufactured. The question, I think, arose in the first instance through want of cloth for aeroplanes. An embargo was placed by Great Britain on Irish flax or linen yarns coming to this or any other country. The stock here had run out, also the stock in the United States. The threads that are used by shoemakers and harnessmakers was also exhausted, likewise fishing twines, and a serious question arose as to how these could be obtained; they were not manufactured in Canada at that time. The flax industry was being encouraged to some extent and there was a good deal of hope that it would develop into a large industry. The government of that day accordingly passed under the authority of the War Measures Act, an appropriation to the extent of $25,000 a year as a maximum to be paid in bounty on the production in Canada of linen yarns. No factory was ready to start that work, no factory in America was equipped for the purpose. A factory had been started in Philadelphia but 't had not been able to compete with the Irish, or Belgian linens, or with the linens from Japan. But the machinery was avail-

able there, and was subsequently purchased and brought to Canada. The bounty is paid at so much per pound.


James Alexander Robb: Three cents.


Hugh Guthrie: With reference to linen yarn manufactured in Canada, only a small portion of the bounty has been earned. The factory in Guelph is the only one that has gone to the extent of actually manufacturing these linen yarns. I understand the amount earned last year was only five or six thousand dollars. It may be that that is not a full year's accounting, and that more will have to be paid, but the maximum as to amount was $25,000 per year, the limit of time was three years, and this is the last year.


Mr. JACOBS:: May I ask the hon. gentleman, who seems to be acting as substitute for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, how much has been paid on account of this bounty?


James Alexander Robb: Less than $10,000.


Milton Neil Campbell: Perhaps the hon.
gentleman can give us some information as to the possibility of this becoming a paying industry in Canada or if the money is to be merely thrown away.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend must remember that the bounty was given for the purpose of starting the industry. Our information is that this mill is running. The amount paid varies according to the quality of the thread. It provides for a bounty of 3 cents a pound to be paid on linen yarn not coarser than 12 lea, or finer than 20 lea, and 6 cents per pound for yarn 20 lea and finer but coarser than 40 lea, and 9 cents a pound for yarn 40 lea and finer. The amount appropriated under the original act was not to exceed $75,000 in all, and not to exceed $25,000 per year. My hon. friend will observe that, in placing this in the estimates, we are simply carrying out the Order in Council of 1920, and if the money is not earned there is nothing to pay.


Milton Neil Campbell: I do not like to press it very much further, but, in view of the fact that this amount of money is not ordinarily required, I do not see the necessity for voting it. Could the hon. minister not cut it down to the actual amount required?


James Alexander Robb: No, we cannot cut it down one cent, because Parliament three years ago advertised to industries that $25,000 a year was available for three years. You

Supply-Trade and Commerce
would not ask us to repudiate an act of Parliament. This is the last year. There is only one way of correcting it, and that is to repeal the act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics (including census 1921), $415,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I think we should have from the minister some rather detailed statement as to how far advanced these statistics are, and when they will be ready for the country.


James Alexander Robb: This information is handed out to the press, when completed. The information with respect to the provinces has been handed out, but we have not yet fully completed all the details for the different counties, cities, towns and townships. The staff is working at it continuously and we hope before long to be able to hand out a complete statement.


Mr. MILLAR:: Will the minister tell us why, when the census was being taken, those who are born in Canada and have lived all their lives in Canada, cannot be registered as Canadians?


James Alexander Robb: I have read that inquiry
frequently in the newspapers. My predecessor, was responsible for starting machinery to take the last census, and I imagine he followed the procedure of previous years, but I am forced to believe that the omission to which publicity was given in the last census will not occur again when we take the census of 1931.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Can the
minister not give us more information as to when the census is to be brought down? I am surprised to learn that the details are not ready. The final results are ready, and the final results, one would think could only be made up from the mass of details which the census department already has. What is the reason for the delay in knowing what the census is in the smaller group, when we have the information for the larger group ?


James Alexander Robb: I think hon. gentlemen will
agree with me that there are volumes of figures to be compiled and checked, and, incidentally, I may take the House into my confidence, and say that we have dis^ covered some irregularities in the census. For instance, we discovered in some of the western towns that the census had been padded, and whole blocks had been put in which did not exist. Four enumerators
were brought before the court and fined. We had complaints from some of the eastern cities that there were omissions in the census. It is important that all these should be checked up carefully before the final report is handed out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When do you expect it to be handed out?


James Alexander Robb: I have urged the department to work as fast as possible and get it out.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
has taken the House into his confidence, and I am going to be similarly frank with my hon. friend. Some people think the Government are not at all in a hurry to redistribute.


James Alexander Robb: I heard that of the last
government.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is thought to be a common fault with governments, and that the present Government are not at all anxious, at any rate, to provide for proper representation at the present minute.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why not?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I leave that to my hon. friend to answer. I do not know why. Redistribution is very much overdue, and my hon. friend will tell us, of course, that we should have looked after it some months ago, although he says it cannot be looked after now. But a very easy way of preventing redistribution would simply be to delay bringing down the details of the census.


James Alexander Robb: We have no desire to do
that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am delighted to receive that assurance. Can the minister tell us the cost of the census as against the other ordinary administration costs of the department?


Samuel William Jacobs: I see, in the estimates for 1921-22, an item of $1,860,000 for expenses in connection with the taking of the census. This year, the amount is $415,000. Could the minister give us some idea as to the actual cost of taking the census of 1921?


James Alexander Robb: That is a similar question to the one asked by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). Up to December 31, last, we had paid out on account of the Statistics Bureau including
1364	COMMONS
Supply-Trade and Commerce
census, $1,626,540.07. Of this amount, there was expended $97,194.58 for the bureau, and $1,529,345.49 for the census.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not receive from the minister any approximate date when he thought the census returns would be available for the House. The returns which, he understands, we are most anxious to have are, of course, those which would guide the House in the preparation of a redistribution bill. I think the House will agree that that is one of the most important things which we have ahead of us, and a matter which should not be delayed any longer than is absolutely necessary. The figures are all in the bureau at this time. The census was commenced last June, eleven months ago, and, under ordinary conditions, it should have been completed by this time-yes, before this time. The census returns are indispensable in the preparation of a proper redistribution bill, and until we get them, we cannot move in the matter. I was a little surprised, at an earlier date in the session, to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announce that the Government did not intend to proceed with redistribution at this session. I do not know that this affects Ontario so very much; from what I see in the newspapers, it may be that Ontario may lose one or two seats. That is not the point; the point is that the people are entitled to proper representation, no matter whether they live in Ontario or the West; and the minister, by putting on a few additional clerks, could bring down the necessary information to this House within a very few days. The question I asked the minister was: Are we to have this information or are we not? Those who live in parts of Canada where the representation is going to be very much affected, I should think, would join in the demand for early figures in regard to the census. I should be very glad if my hon. friend would give us to-night an approximate idea when he expects to lay before the House sufficient details of the census to enable the House to deal with a redistribution bill. The item which we are discussing now is the census item, and I think we should get that information before the item is passed.


James Alexander Robb: I think I can go so far as to assure my hon. friend that, barring un-forseen events, the census will be completed and brought down in plenty of time to prepare a redistribution bill before there is a general election.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the purest kind of evasion. I think the minister must see that himself. There could not be a general election held in this country without a redistribution bill, unless we are going to administer a very severe wrench to our constitution. We must have the census figures. What is the reason for the delay? The statement of the minister tonight will not account for the delay. The employment of a few additional clerks would give us those figures next week, and I think, before the committee passes this item, it should get from the minister a definite promise that we are going to have those figures. It is all right to say that we shall have them before there is a general election. This Government is not in that altogether happy position that it can exactly say when we should or should not have a general election. All the more reason why we should have the census figures to enable us to have a proper redistribution bill.


James Alexander Robb: To-morrow morning I will give instructions to the bureau to spur up a little, if it is possible to put on more help, and bring down the complete census.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman say that the chief of the census staff is of opinion that they have not sufficient information now to warrant the introduction of a bill?


James Alexander Robb: I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: Is he not the authority?


James Alexander Robb: I did not say so.


Arthur Meighen: I say he is.


James Alexander Robb: Say what?


Arthur Meighen: The Chief of the Statistics Branch. Will the hon. gentleman say that he is of opinion that the returns are not sufficient to warrant our going on with redistribution?


James Alexander Robb: I have not offered any opinion in that regard. The question was asked when the census would be completed and brought down. I replied that some irregularities had been discovered in the census and that instructions had been issued not to give out complete returns to the printers, until the returns were all checked up and we could hand out a census that would be fairly satisfactory. The hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Meighen) w>as absent when I intimated to the House that we had discovered certain irregularities in western Canada; that four men had

Supply-Trade and Commerce
been fined for padding the lists, and that we have a grist of complaints from eastern Canada, from some cities, that names have been omitted. I am sure my hon. friends will agree with me that it is important that we should check up these returns and satisfy the people that the census handed out is a fair census. That work is being done as rapidly as possible. If my hon. friends desire that we should put on more help, I will ask the chief census enumerator to put on more help, if possible, and to spur up the work. We have no desire to delay completion of the census.


Arthur Meighen: Small complaints as to persons being 'left out are one thing; I know nothing about that; but I saw some time ago census returns published as to several provinces, and I have read the address of the chief statistician. From that address no one could come to any conclusion save this, that the census is now and has been for some time quite sufficiently advanced for all the purposes of redistribution.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is the right hon. gentleman aware of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announced to the House the other day that there would be no redistribution this year? I think the Prime Minister this year is master of the situation.


Arthur Meighen: That may be a question. I was not discussing that. I was merely saying that, as regards the census returns, there is no excuse for lack of redistribution this session.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the minister should let this item stand over until he gives us some more definite information as to when those figures will 'be available, and fvhat is holding up the completion of the work. For the last two or three months, we have expected that those figures would be available. Some of my hon. friends around me seem to think this is not of a great deal of consequence for the province of Ontario. There is this to remark, that the part of Canada to which it is of real consequence, is apparently very quiescent and very acquiescent as regards the Government's action in not bringing down the figures. I should have thought, if people in any part of the Dominion of Canada showed urgency in regard to this matter, it would be hon. members from western provinces; and if they are prepared to acquiesce in the delay and to postpone any possibility of redistribution this session, I do not know that people from Ontario are
so very much concerned about the matter. But the wonderful silence on the part of all hon. members from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in regard to this question is certainly most impressive.


Mr.   IIOEY@: It is encouraging, almost inspiring indeed, to learn that my hon. friends to my right have become converted to the necessity for redistribution. I want to say that silence is no indication of acquiescence. There is on the Order Paper to-day, I understand, a resolution by a member of this group calling the attention of this House to the desirability of enacting a measure of redistribution this session, if possible. I want to associate myself very heartily with the earlier statement made by my hon. friend from South Wellington, that it is very desirable we should have the actual facts concerning the recent census at the earliest possible date with the object of passing a redistribution bill.


Mr. MACLEAN (York) :: I would also like to point out a reason for urgency in this matter. I come from the county of York, a riding that is partly urban and partly rural. In the last election the total number of voters on the list of South York was 49,700. That constituency is entitled to at least three seats. While the city of Toronto and the county of York have ten members in this House, they are really entitled according to population, so far as we know the figures, to twenty members. We ought to have twenty. It is now proposed to introduce the principle of proportional representation in electing representatives to this House. The city of Toronto would like to know how long it is going to be without a fair representation in this House, and whether the principle of proportional representation is to govern at the next election. If so, it will effect an absolute revolution in the city of Toronto and the county of York, and that being the case, we are entitled to know the actual census figures at the earliest possible moment. I believe the figures could be easily prepared and given to the public; I do not think it is necessary to take so much time over it. We cannot have the information too soon, especially in view of so much talk about another election being held any day in this country. We want to have these figures so that we can study them and devise some means of bringing about an equality between the representation of the cities and of the rural portions. While Ontario would not have any more seats, surely the cities by reason of their growth in population are

Supply-Trade and Commerce
entitled to greater representation than they now have. As a matter of fact, the city of Toronto and the county of York include about one-fourth of the population of Ontario, and if one man's vote is as good as another man's, we ought to have one-fourth of Ontario's representation in this House, whereas we have a good deal less than one-eighth.


Robert James Manion: With reference to the
Bureau of Statistics, I should like to ask the minister what progress has been made in unifying the work of gathering statistics for all departments of the Government. At present, if one wants statistics dealing with a certain branch of the Government, it is sometimes very difficult to get them without hunting up a certain branch, or a certain section of that branch, or a certain department, or something of that sort, and being referred from one to the other. On one occasion last year I was referred from one branch to another seven or eight times before I succeeded in getting certain figures I required in regard to minerals. That is very annoying. There should he one central place where we could get statistics relating to any department and any branch of the Government, and I should like to know what advancement has been made in the working out of such a central system.


James Alexander Robb: That work is being gradually co-ordinated. I myself have had occasion to find fault with the duplication of information that is asked for throughout the country. In so far as it is possible, this duplication is being eliminated and the work centralized in the bureau of which Mr. Coats has charge.


Robert James Manion: The object ultimately is that Mr. Coats' office will be able to give statistics relating to any branch of the government?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What is there, if anything, that is not in the statistics office now?


James Alexander Robb: The Department of Labour have a statistical branch, as well as the Mines Department and the Department of the Interior.


Arthur Meighen: There is no statistical branch in the Department of the Interior. There is a Natural Resources branch, which gathers information of course, but that is not statistics, and such figures as it does gather go immediately to the statis-

tics office. If there is a branch gathering statistics in the Department of Labour, it would occur to me there is no need of it, as the work should all be done in the Statistics branch.


James Alexander Robb: Perhaps my hon. friend is right. I know that the figures that are gathered in the Interior Department are sent to Mr. Coats' office. I remember some months ago a man wanted to be transferred from that work in the Interior Department to Mr. Coats' branch.


Arthur Meighen: I know that every requisition of the hon. gentleman's department to the Interior with regard to the transfer of statistics was met by the Interior Department. There was no reservation.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince) :: How many enumerators were employed on the last census, and what proportion of them were soldiers?


James Alexander Robb: There were 11,414 enumerators. We have no record as to the number of returned soldiers employed, but a number of returned soldiers were engaged on this work.


William Findlay Maclean: In my riding in every case where the work of taking the census could be given to returned jnen, that was done. The majority of the work was done by returned men and done fairly well.


Charles Marcil: The British North America Act has very wisely provided that the representation of this House should be based on the representation of the province of Quebec. As a commissioner of the city of Montreal for some years, I am familiar with conditions existing in that city, and I cannot approve too strongly the stand taken by the minister to make doubly certain that the census figures, for the island of Montreal more especially, are authentic and accurate. It is a well known fact to those who read the Montreal papers that when the preliminary census figures were given out, several newspapers in Montreal, La Presse, La Patrie, the Montreal Star, as well as the Chambre de Commerce and others, protested against the figures and alleged 1hat the census that had been taken within the city limits was inaccurate and incomplete. Petitions were signed and circulated calling on the Government to verify the figures, so I hope the minister before a final announcement is made, if he has not already taken the necessary steps to verify

Supply-Trade and Commerce
these charges, will do so, so that when we get the census report for the province of Quebec and of the island of Montreal we shall know that it is absolutely accurate and complete. The figures for the city of Montreal, properly speaking, are misleading because they only give the population within che municipal limits. The outlying towns, Westmount, Outremont, and so on, are left out of the complete figures for Montreal as they are generally given.
Generally speaking, I think it is the duty of the minister and of the Government to make doubly sure that these charges have been fully investigated so that the figures finally given out may be absolutely satisfactory. This is a matter in which not only the province of Quebec, but every province in the Dominion is interested. If the members from Ontario and the West are anxious to have a change in the representation of this House, they must be certain that the basis on which the work is done is absolutely accurate, and that the figures that are finally given are the correct figures which the country should have.


Arthur Meighen: Is it not a fact that
the checking up has all been done as respects Montreal? There is no doubt now as to the figures?


James Alexander Robb: The checking up as respects Montreal has been fairly well completed. It is only right to say that in many cases we discovered the complaints were scarcely justified. There were many irregularities, but they were not of as grave a character as was at first thought and reported through the press. For the further information of my hon. friend, I have here the last report of the Commissioner of the Census up to the 20th of April. He intimates that the returns were being handed out as finally revised, but that in the case of the province of Quebe- there was more than the ordinary amount of revision found necessary, and he would like to spend a few days longer on the final revision. I imagine the returns will be completed in a very few days.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does he indicate how much revision still remains to be done?


James Alexander Robb: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: On the 20th
of April he intimated that the final work would be done in a very few days. That is twelve days ago. Does not the minister think this vote might well stand over until he has those final returns?


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend insists
upon it I do not object, but I can assure him that we will speed up the work tomorrow. We are just as anxious as he is to have it completed.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Have all the enumerators and other census officers been paid in full?


James Alexander Robb: So far as I know all those
whose reports have been passed upon and approved have been paid; but only a few days ago some cases were brought to my attention where enumerators-one in the eastern part of Quebec-had failed to send in final returns. Until we get those final returns we are not going to make payment. In those cases we have had to send men especially down to look into the returns.


Arthur Meighen: I feel that I shouldalthough I do not hope to change any opinion as a result-say a few words with regard to a remark that fell from the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey), as regards those on this side of the House only lately favouring redistribution. The fact is, as was stated in the House last session-although I do not suppose the statement got very wide circulation where such circulation was not profitable-that I made every attempt to have the census so advanced that we could introduce a redistribution bill last session. I conferred with the Chief of the Statistics Branch, who informed me that owing to a change in the law made about ten years ago the census was taken on the first of June instead of three months earlier, as had previously been the case. I canvassed with him the possibility of advancing the date again to the first of March and rushing the census so that redistribution could be introduced during the session. Upon investigation the Chief of the Statistics branch reported to me that it would be impossible so to do, that even by advancing the census three months not more than one month at the very outside would be gained, owing to the difficulty of getting work done at that unfavourable period of the year, the roads and weather conditions being what they would be, and that consequently it would not be possible to be through with the work earlier than September; but that taking the census at the time fixed by law, namely, the first of June, it would in his judgment be possible to have the return ready in October. I had a letter from him to that effect.
Esquimalt-Nanaimo Ry.

During a discussion last session I stated that in my judgment we would not be justified in dissolving Parliament at that time in response to demands from hon. gentlemen, then in the opposition. One reason I gave was that it was very important to have redistribution before dissolution, and I stated that I was most anxious to have it.
It developed in the fall, at a further conference with the Chief Statistician of the Census branch, that it would be the month of December before the census returns were ready, such had been the slow progress made as a result of many unforeseen difficulties that had been encountered, and that there would be no possibility of securing census returns sufficient to warrant going on with a redistribui tion bill until at least the month of December, that that month would be late enough and by that time the census returns would be available. That meant redistribution could not be put through at any special session, and that if it was to be attended to before dissolution we would have to have a regular session. Under the circumstances I feel that a regular session would not be justified even for the purpose of redistribution. Those are the facts.
It now transpires that it would not have been possible even in December. I feared that might be the case, because I knew that already completion of the census returns was two months beyond the time that had been fixed first in the spring, and if that should be the case we would be in a very unfortunate position indeed. Consequently I felt it my duty not to wait for redistribution. But for hon. gentlemen to try to lead the House to believe that there was any aversion on my part to redistribution, or that the importance of it was not appreciated, is entirely to mislead the House, although not done intentionally.
Now, I do think that we undoubtedly have information enough-I cannot think it can be otherwise having read the addresses and the information given by the Chief Statistician-I say that we undoubtedly have information enough to warrant the introduction of a redistribution bill at the earliest possible date.


James Alexander Robb: This session?


Arthur Meighen: At this session.


Mr. LEWIS:: Is it the intention to gradually include all statistical clerks from the various departments of the Government under this one head, because I notice on page 104 under the details of civil govern-

ment that there are 91 statistical clerks employed at a salary of $85,055? Is that in addition to the amount of half a million dollars under this head?


James Alexander Robb: Page 104 refers to civil employees.


Arthur John Lewis: But are the salaries included in this Dominion Bureau under this
item?


James Alexander Robb: No, that money represents the salaries that we have voted under civil
government estimates.


Arthur John Lewis: But this item we have
now, No. 360?


James Alexander Robb: No, this is for the salaries of enumerators and others who took the
census.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is it not a fact that these census enumerators were appointed by the Government without the assistance of the Civil Service Commission, and that in these appointments we have had patronage exercised in its most evil form?


Arthur Meighen: I do not hear any
answer. An answer might possibly embarrass the Gove* .iment, if it ever hopes to be in office for another census. I would suggest to the hon. member that he inquire as to the possibility of appointments under the Civil Service Commission for temporary work of this nature, requiring very often re-appointment to the same office for a very few days in succession. The hon. member knows that as well as anyone else. All I hope for from this Government is that they maintain the Civil Service Act in the form in which it is to-day-indeed, that is somewhat beyond my hopes. If they succeed in doing that, then there will at least be less cause for complaint than there has been in the past. If, however, the hon. member feels like introducing a motion now, as a government supporter, for the appointment under the Civil Service Commission of officials doing enumerating temporarily once in ten years, it will be an evidence of loyalty to that act that I do not expect from hon. gentlemen opposite.


Samuel William Jacobs: What I complain about particularly is that of the thousands who were appointed everyone seems to have been a supporter of the past government.


Charles Marcil: The minister has said that the delay was caused through one or two of the eastern constituencies not being yet fully reported. In

Supply-Trade and Commerce
my own constituency some of the enumerators complain that they are still unpaid. Of course, these men were not appointed by me; I was not even consulted. But they are complaining to this day, and I would like to know how the matter stands.


James Alexander Robb: It is exactly in my hon. friend's consituency that the trouble arises. The Chief Commissioner in Bonaventure has been dilatory in sending in returns, particularly those relating to the accounts of the persons who worked under him. It was necessary to send a man down there.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Before the resolution carries it seems to me that we ought to have something definite from the ministerial benches as to the attitude they take. Does redistrubtion depend, in the opinion of the minister, upon the completion of that part of the work which has not yet been reported? Or does the mihistelr agree with the leader of the Opposition when he says that there is already enough information available on which to base a redistribution bill? If we are to be told that because of a little trouble in this or that constituency there is to be no redistribution, we want to know it now. On the other hand, if the attitude of the Government is that the census enumeration has advanced to such a point that there is no reason why a redistribution bill should not now be brought down-very good; I have no objection to the item passing. But if that information is not forthcoming, then this item should be held up until we find out exactly what position the work is in; and this is the only opportunity of ascertaining that.


James Alexander Robb: May I remind my hon friend, in the first place, of the statement of the leader of the Opposition that it is very hard to determine exactly when this work will be completed? The leader of the Opposition has just told us that in the case of the last census he was disappointed on three different occasions and found its completion delayed. In 1911 we took a census in this country, and we did not have a redistribution bill until the session of 1914.


Arthur Meighen: Did the hon. gentleman say 1914?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: 1913.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No; I have a clear recollection that the redistribution bill was passed in June, 1914.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou) :: The act is chapter 61 of the statutes of 1914; it was assented to in June, 1914. I had the honour of being on that committee. The committee was appointed immediately after the House assembled in January, and its labours were not completed until June. To readjust the boundaries of constituencies all over the Dominion where county boundaries do not exist and where the population has increased in urban centres; to provide for the fair adjustment of boundaries in the cities, is no easy task. Hon. gentlemen who have had to do with work of this kind will realize that a redistribution, in order to be successful, would occupy the attention of Parliament for three or four months.


Hugh Guthrie: That is all the more reason why we should not further delay this matter; we should get at it at the earliest possible moment. Now, there was this difference between the situation in 1911 and that in 1922. In 1911 the Conservative party had a large majority in the House; there was no chance in those days of anything giving way. But that is not the case with this Government; from what we have seen during this session there are all kinds of chances in the present circumstances. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made up his mind-I have no doubt that he has his leader's authority for it-that there will be no redistribution bill this session and that, therefore, there is no need for
10 p.m. haste; he can jog along with these figures and bring them down at the end of the session or the beginning of next session. He can see, if he opens his eyes, that there is no very serious demand from the Progressive party for a redistribution bill this session-that is, if we may judge from their attitude in the House to-night.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know what the figures are, and I am not saying they were not delayed in the past. But I do think the committee has a right to know now exactly how this matter stands; we should not be put off with vague statements as to troubles here or troubles there. We want to know whether there is enough information in the hands of the Government to enable the House to consider this question. It is an easy thing for the minister to get that information, and I am afraid he will have to get it.


James Alexander Robb: I will be prepared to give my hon. friend such information as I have,



Supply-Trade and Commerce
but I will rot guarantee the figures are eom_ plete. As the leader of the Opposition said a few moments ago, this matter is entirely in the hands of the Chief Statistician. Surely my hon. friend does not ask me to hand out reports the correctness of which he himself cannot be assured.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not asking that at all. But the minister only a moment ago mentioned correspondence he had received from the census commissioner, indicating that the reports might be finished in a few days. All I ask is that we have the information down to date.


James Alexander Robb: As soon as it is finished, I will give it to my hon. friend.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No; I want the hon. gentleman to find out now how it stands and when the final report can be made.


Mr. COOTE:: Before the resolution is declared carried I want to refer briefly to the remarks made by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). I think his remarks were entirely out of place. I am a new member in this House and know very little of the mode of procedure, but it seemed to me that the hon. member was a little out of order: I understood we were passing estimates and not discussing the matter of redistribution. For my part, I feel that we should have redistribution and that we should have it at this session. I understand that an opportunity will be afforded later to discuss that matter and if there is, I will place myself on record then. But I cannot allow the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for South Wellington to pass without letting him know where I stand.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain):: My hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Coote) says that he is a new member, and that explains why he would give any great attention to the remarks of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). Now if we are to take the opinion of the leader of the Opposition seriously we would not be losing all this time on the present item because he told the committee that we had enough information, or at any rate that the minister would have enough, to justify proceeding with the redistribution bill. As my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) said, we are discussing this estimate and not the subject of redistribution. Therefore I would say to tMr. Robb.]
you Mr. Chairman, that we had better deal with the present item and not venture upon a discussion of redistribution at the present time. When we come to the matter of redistribution the curiosity of my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), I am sure, will be set at rest, to our satisfaction at any rate. In connection with this matter I am sure the minister has every right to take the stand that he has taken. As has been pointed out my hon. friends to the right appointed these officials. The present minister did not have anything to do with the matter and had no chance to appoint competent officials; consequently he has had to put up with the work of men appointed by the late government. The work, in many districts, has been poorly done- that is evident-and we will have to wait until we get satisfactory information. This the minister has promised in good time.


Robert James Manion: When we listen so often to hon. members to our left calling us down for delaying the business of the House it makes us feel a little bit fatigued to say the least. To-night we had to sit here for one whole hour listening to the tiresome repetition of arguments intended to kill a certain bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Frederick Johnston: My hon. friend does not want to make a misstatement. The hon. member who occupies the floor in reference to the bill referred to is not connected with the Progressive party.


Robert James Manion: I am quite agreeable that my hon. friend should disown-


Alan Webster Neill: And he was not out of order, Mr. Chairman.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend from
Comox-Alberni, (Mr. Neill) knows something about being out of order because he was out of order for a solid hour this evening. I was remarking for my hon. friend (Mr. Johnston) that although he might not claim the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, at the same time hon. members to my left voted solidly in favour of killing the bill in question. Therefore, when we are looking for a little information on a subject like this it is not open to my hon. friend from Last Mountain to address lectures to us in view of such actions on the part of hon. members sitting around him.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Arthur Meighen: None of us who sat in the House with the hon. member for Last Mountain and witnessed his unfailing fidelity to the Liberal party, irrespective wholly of where he sits, are surprised now when, in any difficulty, we see him coming through the fog and the mist with the lifeboat to whatever minister may be in trouble. If the minister will say that the expression of belief that I gave is right-that in so far as the census returns are concerned there is no reason on that score for the delay of redistribution-then the subject of redistribution enters no further into the discussion on this item. This item bears on redistribution only to the extent that it involves the question as to whether we are far enough on now to go ahead or not. Now, I took the responsibility of expressing the opinion-from what I had read, from what I had seen issued from the census office-that we are. If the minister will say that is right then, so far as I am concerned, there is no objection at all to the item passing; but I would not like to have the item pass without any information as to the extent the census has advanced and then, when the resolution of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Shaw) comes up, have it met by hon. gentlemen opposite with the assertion " Oh we are not far enough on with the census." Let us know before this item passes if we are far enough on so far as the census is concerned. Then, well and good-there ends the relationship of redistribution to this item.


James Alexander Robb: For the information of my hon. friend I repeat the statement I received from the Dominion Statistician on the 20th April. Indeed, I had better read the whole of the letter and then the leader of the Opposition will know as much about the subject as I do:
As the data for any particular group of census districts, cities, towns, etc., became available they have been given to the press, during the past fall and winter, in the form of mimeographed sheets for simultaneous publication. In each case the figures were given as preliminary only. In this way, the results for the several provinces, by electoral districts, and for the leading cities and towns of Canada, [DOT]were given out between September 1921 and March 1922. Altogether nineteen statements of this kind were issued.
As the returns for each province become available in finally revised form they are being issued in printed leaflets. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have already appeared in this form, and similar bulletins for Manitoba, and British Columbia are in the press. Those for Saskatchewan and Ontario will follow next week-
87i
That is the week following. I am not sure that I have received them yet or not. -whilst Quebec will appear last.
In the case of Quebec more than the ordinary amount of revision has been found necessary, and unless there is urgent demand for the results we would like to spend a few days longer on the final totals.
R. H. COATS, Dominion Statistician.
I think that is a reasonable request.


Arthur Meighen: I do not dispute the accuracy of the statement but it does not say whether or not the census is far enough advanced. If that is all the information the minister has, and he does not know whether or not the census is far enough advanced, there is no reason why he should not know by Thursday-no reason at all. He can go to his chief statistician and come to this House and say "yes" or "no" in reply to the question. Now would it not be well to have that information definitely before we go further?


James Alexander Robb: The estimates of the Trade and Commerce Department will not all be passed to-night and when the estimates of the department are up again I may have that information for him. But my right hon. friend was Prime Minister. He himself thought at one time to have a revision. He was disappointed and he fixed another date. Again he was disappointed and another date was fixed on. For the third time he was disappointed.


Arthur Meighen: Just twice.


James Alexander Robb: I will give my hon. friend a promise to bring down the information when we go into committee again. In the meantime I suggest we make some progress.


Charles Marcil: Before
leaving this subject I call attention to this one fact: Before the last census was undertaken the then Minister of Trade and Commerce through the chief statistician wrote to every member of the House to ascertain whether he had recommendations to make as to the manner in which the census should be taken in his constituency. I made certain recommendations for my constituency, and inquired whether I would have anything to say as to the appointment of the census officers and enumerators. I was told "No", and the result of it is that not being consulted I did not nominate anybody. To this day a number of these men remain

Supply-Trade and Commerce
unpaid, and the department has to send men down to the constituency in order to clear up the situation. Now I believe in the popular representatives having something to say with respect to these matters, particularly as regards their own constituencies. If I had been consulted as regards the county of Bonaventure, bearing in mind the experience that I have had on two other occasions, I certainly would have given advice that would have saved all this trouble, and the same remark applies to many other members. Unfortunately, the appointments were made on the basis of party patronage and to please friends of the Government. The result is that these appointments are unsatisfactory and the whole thing has been botched.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member reminds the committee of some trouble in the past in the county of Bonaventure. I was member for the constituency of Portage la Prairie when the census of 1911 was taken hut I assure the hon. member that I was not consulted as to who was appointed to take the census, and the woes and troubles of my hon. friend are as nothing to those I enjoyed because of a much less efficient census, much less expedition, much less satisfaction, and far greater delay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gold and Silver Marking Act, Administration of, $6,000.
James Alexander Robb: That is to enable the inspector to do more travelling and look over the work more completely. It has been a bit neglected this year owing to war activities.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: He is not going to
Florida.


James Alexander Robb: Oh I do not think so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Honorary Advisory Council of Industrial and Scientific Research (salaries and expenses including printing and stationery and the collection and distribution of information, and for studentships, fellowships, social problems and forestry study), $120,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a very important matter. In fact, I wish it were a great deal more extended than provided for in the resolution. Is there any intention of bringing in a bill similar to the one passed last session for the establishment of a standards bureau? I think this work carried on by the Advisory Council has proved beyond all question the desirability of the establishment of such a standards bureau in Ottawa. I have received per-

sonally-and I am sure the minister has received-many requests from industrial concerns asking for the extension of this splendid work. Has the minister that matter under contemplation, or is it simply intended to allow the work to go on as at present? I am not criticizing the work, but I do not think it is going far enough, or really accomplishing what it might, if the provision were made which was made in the bill passed last year by this House and thrown out by the Senate.


James Alexander Robb: For the present year it is the intention of the department and the Government to continue the work carried on last year and to give it all the encouragement possible along these lines, but it is not the intention of the Government to bring in any additional vote this session. Between now and next session a careful study will be made of the work, and I am not committing myself to what will be done, but we will be prepared to make a statement next session.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has the minister received any important correspondence in regard to the matter, urging the establishment of the bureau?


James Alexander Robb: We have received requests from many boards of trade throughout Canada, from some of the colleges and from many organized bodies. It seems to be approved by the people of Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the Government not consider that the exhaustive study of this question by the parliamentary committee during the session of 1919 or 1920, and the decisions of that committee and of the House last session, would warrant them in introducing the bill without further investigation? Does the hon. minister not think that the House seems to have been fully advised of the need? The Upper House perhaps might be enlightened as well. As far as the ranks of the Government are concerned, there should be sufficient information on. hand, without further study on the part of the minister or his colleagues.


James Alexander Robb: The hon. gentleman must
not forget that there is a new House of Commons here, and that there is a financial side to this issue. We desire this year, as far as possible, to economize, and, for that reason, we are not going to bring in any further recommendation to the House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. minister might give me the consolation of saying that he would see that the evidence taken before

Supply-Trade and Commerce
the committee is supplied to the new members of the House, because I am sure they will peruse it with interest and profit.


James Alexander Robb: If it is available it will be distributed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International Customs Tariffs Bureau, $2,462,
Milton Neil Campbell: Will the minister explain what is involved in this?


James Alexander Robb: A number of nations are interested in this International Customs Tariff Bureau, and last year the Government of Belgium, through their Consul General at Ottawa, reported to the Government at Ottawa the marked increase in the expenses now connected with the bureau, and recommended that Canada, as well as the other countries, be requested to increase its quota three times.


Milton Neil Campbell: What are the functions of this bureau?


James Alexander Robb: To compile international tariffs, gather information and distribute it to the nations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trade Commissioners and Commercial Agents-salaries and contingencies thereof and miscellaneous expenditures in the development and extension of Canadian trade, $280i,0:0l0'.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Really, I think this is perhaps the most important item, although not the largest, in the estimates of the hon. minister. The hour is so late that one hesitates to make any observation at all.


James Alexander Robb: Would the hon. member like it to stand?
Mr. STEVENS. I do not wish to delay the estimates, but, perhaps, if the minister would let it stand, we could go on with something less important. .


James Alexander Robb: The item will stand.
Item stands.
Gas and electricity inspection, $176,3301.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps the minister will explain this increase in view of decreasing costs.


James Alexander Robb: The increase is attributable to statutory salary increases to the staff.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does civil government not take care of most of the salaries in the department?


James Alexander Robb: No, we have the men outside.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is for the inspectors?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, inspectors throughout the country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In other words, this item will cover the salaries of outside inspectors, their travelling expenses, and such like?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And the increase is made up of increases in salaries to those inspectors?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: The Government imposes charges for this inspection, does it not?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: A considerable revenue is derived in that way?


James Alexander Robb: Yes, there is a surplus in regard to this work. It more than carries itself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Printing of Parliamentary and departmental publications, including cost of translation, $2 O'O', OHO.
Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a large increase which I should like the minister to explain. Would he also state to whom this money is paid? That is, is it simply paid to the Printing Bureau; or how much of it, if any, is paid outside of the Printing Bureau? Does this include the publications of the statistical bureau; and if it does, is there a corresponding decrease in other departments owing to the consolidation of the statistical branches?


James Alexander Robb: As to the consolidation
feature of the matter, I am not prepared to answer the question offhand, but this amount is all paid to our own Printing Bureau. As my hon. friend will remember, prior to last year this work was done by the different departments, and when it was transferred to this department of printing, a guess was made as to how much it was going to cost and we guessed wrong. Therefore, we have to put in a sufficient amount to cover the expenses this year.


James Dew Chaplin: How much was spent last year?


James Alexander Robb: I regret I have not that information with me.
1ST 1

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Robert Milton Johnson: The minister has stated that formerly this printing was done in various departments. Will he tell us if he has effected economies by consolidating the printing under one department?


James Alexander Robb: That was the idea of the consolidation. We shall be able to measure that when the returns are all completed.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the absence of a little defence for the previous government by the minister, I cannot allow my hon. friend (Mr. Johnson), with his usual subtlety, to get away with the suggestion carefully concealed or partially veiled in his question. This consolidation was commenced long ago by the late government, and it was fairly well accomplished, with the object of effecting these economies. I asked the minister if he could show us that other departments were not duplicating some of these charges which, apparently and undoubtedly, have been charged to this department. He said that he had not the information with him. I do not think it would be fair to leave the committee with the opinion that the late government did not effect this economy. I do not wish to harp on the matter, but my hon. friend was just a little too clever in the way he put his question.


Robert Milton Johnson: I have another question to ask in connection with this item, and I should like to assure the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) that he gave me credit for something that was not in my mind. I had rather thought this estimate of more importance than the reputation of any party. The question I would like to ask is: To what extent is there a demand for these government publications? I speak from observation covering a number of years, and it seems to me that, in past years, no matter what party happened to be in power, some sections of the country were flooded at times with publications that were not needed. I believe they have a value; but they have a value only if they go into the hands of those who will read them. Are they asked for, or does the department distribute them more or less indiscriminately ?


James Alexander Robb: They a're asked for, and the mailing list is revised periodically. Post cards are sent out asking those who have received these reports if they desire them continued. If no reply comes, the names of those who do not reply are eventually
CMr. Robb.]
taken off the list, and the list is revised from time to time.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Johnson), has brought up a question of some importance. I suppose, as a member of Parliament, a man receives a fairly liberal supply of these publications. I think I can speak for the average member of this House when I say that fully one-half of the publications, which are issued by the government and sent to the individual member, are of no practical use at all. We do not look at them; we do not open them; we consign them to the waste-paper basket a minute or two after we receive them. I am sorry to say that my experience has been that many business houses which receive these reports do the same thing. The mailing list could be very greatly curtailed. Five or six years ago the quantity of unnecessary printing that was done in this country was a positive scandal, and we undertook to see what could be done to remedy that difficulty. Not only was the number of publications greatly reduced, but the mailing list was greatly reduced. I believe the minister would perform a very valuable service if he would look into the question of a further reduction of the mailing-list and also a further reduction in the number of publications. In my own case, and I think it is the case with every member of this House and every member of the local legislatures in this Dominion, more than half what is sent might well be dispensed with and that money saved. If the minister will give that matter his consideration I think he will do a valuable service.


James Alexander Robb: I will give my hon. friend that assurance so far as my own department is concerned. I cannot be responsible for other departments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Beland the House adjourned at 10.35 p.im.
Wednesday, May 3, 1922