[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Geo. H. Boivin (Shef-ford) the first report of the Select Standing Committee appointed to supervise the Official Report of the Debates was concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
Report of the Chief Electoral Officer, of the Fourteenth General Election, 1921.- Mr. Speaker.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Medicine Hat):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to take the House into his confidence with regard to the question of the bonus to civil servants. I understand that on the last pay day the civil servants did not receive their bonus. I would be much obliged if the Prime Minister could give us any information on the subject.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: The matter of the bonus to civil servants is still under consideration; the Government has not reached a final decision on it. The House will be informed in due course.

The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Public Works-Ontario-public buildings- improvements, repairs, etc., $349,200.


The CHAIRMAN:: This item was allowed to stand yesterday.


Hon. J. H. KING (East Kootenay, Minister of Public Works):: The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) inquired yesterday with regard to St. Catharines. In 1919-20 an appropriation of $28,000 was voted for an addition to the public building in that city, but was allowed to lapse. An appropriation of $34,000 was included in the estimates for 1920-21, but after it had been given some consideration it was dropped, and since then it has not been further considered. In reply to the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Stewart), I beg to table the correspondence with regard to public property and public building sites in Hamilton. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) asked that a statement be given with regard to the ap-

Supply-Public Works
propriations amounting to $707,867 not required for 1922-23 and which were included in the estimates for 1921-22. I now wish to give them in detail, as follows:
	Appr.	Expenditure	
Alexandria-To recon-			
truct public building destroyed by Are.. . .	$ 32,000	$ 965	17
Barrie-Post Office-im-			
provements	 Collingwood - Public	1,600	1,797	07
building - improve-	2,600		
HamiUton Post Office			
-improvements. . . .	8,000		
Hamilton-Postal Sta-			
tion "B"	
Kingston K.M.C.-En-	5,000	2,820	46largement of educational block	62,500	60,367	00Leamington - Public	building - fittings. . Leamington - Govern-	1,000	880	60ment's share of local improvements	1,131	1,282	21Lindsay-Post Office-	fittings	
London-Carling Block	3,500	3,494	84-repairs	
Ottawa-Addition to S.	4,000	2,074	00C.R. Buliding on Vit-toria St., alterations to Daly Bldg, and moving expenses.. ..	25,000	12,765	12Ottawa-Pitting up test-	ing laboratory in West Block	2,000	1,811	38Ottawa - Departmental	
buildings

 'heating plant equipment. . . .	8,500	2,680	83
Ottawa - Repairs t o			
Langevin Block.. .. Ottawa-Office accom-	2,000	853	48modation for Chief Electoral Officer.. ..	15,000	11,670	77Ottawa-Partial recon-	struotion of ore dress-	ing plant destroyed by fire	2,500	1,256	00Ottawa - Parliament	Library - alterations for stock room. . ..	13,000	9,168	08Ottawa - Post Office- improvements	
Ottawa - Repairs to	10,000	10,052	18Wellington St. pavement 	62,000	57,792 1	53Ottawa-Royal Mint-	1	improvements	
Ottawa-Royal Mint-	7,000 |	\ 15,093	87new boilers	
Ottawa - Victoria Me-	9,000 J	moriail Museum - restoration	5,500	4,686	45Pembroke-Public building-tower clock.. . . Port Arthur - Govern-	3,200	2,115	46ment's share of cost of locail improvements	10,084	10,084	01Sault Ste. Marie-Pub-	lie building-repairs and improvements. . .	5,000	600	00St. Thomas - Public	building - improvements	1,000	712	70HN o 00	Appr.	Expenditure	Toronto - Dom i n i o n buildings-repairs, etc	32,500	32,284	96Toronto - Postal Station "A"-To complete	350,000	129,751	37Toronto - Postal Station "A"-Tractors ..	10,000	8,000	00Toronto - Post Oifice- alterations	6,000	4,650	75Toronto-St. Andrew's College - Government's share of cost of locail improvements	4,252	Walkerton - Public building - ele c t r i c wiring	2,000	29	40Total	
$707,867 $390,774 69


Mr. GUTHRIE:: What did the minister
say was the total?


Mr. KING (Kootenay) :: The total appropriation was $707,867, and the expenditure $390,774.69.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Does the minister not
realize that that is very substantially different from the figure he gave last night?


John Warwick King: No different.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes. The minister last night stated the expenditure was some $700,000 odd. That is what it sounded like across here, although we have some difficulty in hearing.


Mr. ANDERSON:: Can the minister now state the policy of his department with reference to the revote for the post office at St. Catharines?


John Warwick King: Perhaps the
hon. member was not in his seat, but I have already stated that no consideration has been given to that expenditure this year.


Robert King Anderson: What is the policy of the department with regard to revotes for other places?


John Warwick King: That is open
for consideration each year. It does not necessarily follow .that because the revote has not been used, it should appear in the estimates next session.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Has the minister considered the question of a post office at Weston? The minister knows that the public have no proper accommodation there^ The very small quarters are shamefully overcrowded, the congestion is tremendous. Three rural mail routes come in, and there are no proper conveniences for them. I understand that the department have requested insistently that something be done. Has the minister considered the matter?
Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: Representations have been made, but we are not considering new construction this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How does the matter stand? Is it a ease in which the department think the work ought to go on, and it is being held up on the ground of economy?


John Warwick King: On the ground
of economy.


Arthur Meighen: The minister did not
seem to think my memory was correct when I referred to the fact that he informed us last night that $707,000 odd had been spent on public buildings last year. On reference to page 1289 of. unrevised Hansard I find this:
Public Buildings, $349,200.
Mr. Meighen: How much appropriation was spent last year?
Mr. King (Kootenay) : $707,000 odd.
Mr. Meighen: Could the hon. gentleman tell us how that was divided?
Mr. King (Kootenay) : I have not that information.


John Warwick King: I think the committee will understand why I replied as I did. The statement I had before me showed as do the estimates the expenditure not required of this $707,000. When questioned last night I told the committee it was not possible to give the information. In fact, it required the work of an official this morning to get it. I think that was understood by the committee.


Arthur Meighen: The minister should
not say that. The minister was asked, not the amount that was not required this year, but the amount spent last year, and the information he gave was $707,000 as clear as words could give it. Why does he seek now to avoid it? He simply made a mistake.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-Chargeable to income-Generally, $225,000.
Mr. CHURCH:: With reference to the
item of $5,000 for flags for Dominion public buildings, is this for flag waving?


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the expenditure under these different heads last year?


Mr KING (Kootenay):: I have not that information here. I am informed that it has not been the custom in the past for the minister to he familiar with these details,

and as far as I am concerned, I am not, and I have not the figures here.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no
doubt the deputy will have the information.


John Warwick King: He may possibly have the information in his head, but he has no information in writing, I understand, of the expenditure under these heads.


Henry Lumley Drayton: He can send
for his folio.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: How is the item of $30,000 divided by provinces?


John Warwick King: This item is required for certain items of expenditure which have to be met every year in connection with public buildings, together with such special outlay for works, and so forth, that cannot well be charged against any one particular item of the general appropriations made by Parliament. It covers such items as travelling expenses, stationery, drawing instruments, printing, telegrams, miscellaneous.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What are the details for last year?


John Warwick King: The expenditure for 1921-1922, up to 21st January, 1922, which is as far as my information goes, is as follows:
Brantford, Ont., general shed-taxes	$601.67
Calgary Post Office site, legal services 81.00 Charlottetown Post Office-taxes ..	220.87
Chatham public building, paving . .	231.77
Cumberland, Ont.,	post office-taxes	215.44
Dunville Post Office site-wrecking
building	 200.00
Essex, Ont., Post	Office-taxes ....	532.50
Generally

Telegrams		. .$3,894.89
Express		. . 495.43
Insurance premium	.. 22.50
Repairs to transit ..	. . 19.00
Auto hire, disbursements,	
etc		. . 497.36
Gas analysis		. . 106.58
Blue Prints, etc		. . 8.25
Repairing clock . . . .	. . 2.00
Removing stone at Saskatoon	 4.36

 5,050.37
Kamloops P.O.-Taxes	 143.30
Kingsville P.O.-site-legal	services	16.94
Milverton, Ont., P.O.

taxes	 20.46
Montreal Ordnance Stores
taxes	$103.29
legal services	 322.80

 426.09
Moosejaw, Custom House, site,
printing, etc	 13.22
Norwich Pub. Bldg.

taxes	 301.18
Ottawa Daly Bldg____legal services ..	555.16
Perth P.O.-site-snow removal,	etc.	9.84

Supply-Public Works
Printing and Stationery	 3,791.86
Photo Supplies	 4,190.01
Photo Work . . '	 2,163.06
Prince Rupert P. Bldg.-photos	..	56.40
Renfrew P. Bldg.-taxes	 327.30
Regina, Asst. Rec. General Office

taxes	 133.61
Regina Immigration Bldg___taxes	..	173.38
Royal C. M. Police-Arctic regionadvertising	 84.90
St. Jacques L'Achigan P.O.-sitesidewalks	[DOT]		288.60
St. John Old Penitentiary site-prtg.	2.27
St. Ours, Que.-P.B.-remove snow	25.75
Sarnia P.O.-Taxes	 374.92
Saskatoon New P.O.-site-repair
fence	 6.40
Southampton P.O.-site, grounds	.	.	50.00
Tilbury P.O.-taxes	 435.83
Toronto, Duchess St. Lots-snow
cleaning	 8.39
Toronto, New P. Bldg.-printing	.	.	793.13
Toronto, Spadina and Oxford St. Lots
clearing snow	 14.05
Travelling expenses and disbursements	 3,958.64
Truro P.O.-site-advertising . .	. .	2.40
Verdun, Que.-P.O.

site-grounds..	4.14
Victoria Astronomical Obsty.-survey	464.39
Winnipeg Postal Station A-fees ..	36.00
Winnipeg Postal Station B-taxes . .	170.32
Wininpeg Postal Station D-taxes ..	674.45
Yarmouth Bingay Bldg.-advertising	31.05
[DOT] $26,881.00


Henry Lumley Drayton: Having found those particulars I wonder if the minister cannot turn up the other items and show the total spent?


John Warwick King: I have not got them.


Hugh Guthrie: During my experience in this House in Committee of Supply, as we are at this moment, it has always been the custom to ask at the outset what amount was spent on votes the previous year, and it seems strange to me that the deputy minister of this department, who has been a long time in the service, does not remember that such has been the practice. It it not very full information that we get from looking at the printed estimates. For instance in the present vote the first item is:
Armouries-'Fittings and Alterations-Revote, $40,000; 1922-23, $50,000 ; 1921-22, $87,000.
Apparently there is a saving of $37,000 this year in that vote; but the committee want to know how much was spent last year. Now, in the case of the information given by my hon. friend1 a few minutes ago in regard to item 148-Ontario-in the item after the vote that he enumerated there was a very small expenditure apart from the money spent in Ottawa and Toronto. Last year we voted $87,000 for fittings and alterations to armouries. This year
we are asked to vote $50,000. Did we spend the $87,000 we voted last year? If we did not, what was the reason? Why should we be called upon to vote $50,000 this year? And so with every item on the list. I notice there is a re-vote of $40,000 in connection with fittings and1 alterations to armouries, consequently there could not have been more than $47,000 spent, although $87,000 was voted. There is one other item that appears this year that did not appear last year:
Military Hospitals-repairs and improvements, $65,000.
I would like some information regarding that item. I assume, although I do not know, that it must be in regard to the military hospital at Winnipeg. Every year we have had a tremendous amount to pay out in connection with that hospital. Nobody grudges the expense for a military hospital where the expense is necessary; but I should think the time was now approaching when the expenditure, for military hospitals at least, should not be extended. The expenditure and the establishments for this purpose ought to be well-nigh complete by this time, but apparently we are asked to spend $65,000 more this year on the military hospital in Winnipeg.
I would like to know how many patients there are now-the number must be pretty well reduced-and what the money is wanted for?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend no doubt is familiar with the fact that this work is being carried on by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and that they indicate from time to time to the Department of Public Works, as other departments of the Government do, their building requirements. They have indicated to us this year that they need a certain amount for the repair of, and improvements to, the military hospitals throughout Canada. This matter has been gone into by departmental officials and the amount of $65,000 has been asked for.


Hugh Guthrie: This is not, then, for work in connection with the Militia Department, it is for the Department of Soldiers'. Civil Re-establishment. I can understand the latter may have requirements, but the military patients must be reduced by this time to almost the vanishing point.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Cannot the minister tell us where this money has been spent? Has he not got the details?

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: Yes, I have; the details are as follows:
Ste. Anne's Hospital, Ste. Anne de Bellevue	$10,000
Unit "A" Office, Montreal, Que.. ..	1,500
Campbell Hospital, Halifax, N.S		2,500
Jordan Sanatorium, River Glade, N.B.	1,500
Unit "B" Office, Halifax, N.S	 500
Sydenham Hospital, Kingston, Ont.. ..	4,000
Mowat Sanitorium, Kingston, Ont. . . .	2,500
Christie St. Hospital, Toronto, Ont.. ..	10,000
Euclid Hall Hospital, Toronto, Ont..	5,500
Brant Hospital, Burlington, Ont.. ..	1,500
Westminster Hospital, London, Ont..	10,000
Sunnyside Hospital, Calgary, Alta.. ..	12,000
Shaughnessy Hospital, Vancouver, B.C.	1,000
Contingencies	 2,500
Total	 $65,000


Arthur Meighen: Why is the title " Military Hospitals " given? These are Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Hospitals.


John Warwick King: I think that is the title they have always carried, at least I am so advised. Of course the work in those hospitals is under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-estahlishment. The expenditure heretofore has been from demobilization votes, but this year we are asking a vote for that purpose; there is no demobilization vote.


Arthur Meighen: There is a vote for the very same purpose as demobilization. Surely it is sufficiently large without transferring items which were formerly under it to this vote. If there is one enquiry more important than another in connection with votes, it is the inquiry, how much money was actually needed last year, how much was spent. Time after time we come to this Committee and ask the question and we are told by ministers "We do not know". We get an estimate given the next day and find the original amount was twice too large. Why is it we have to ask and beg for this information on almost all items of the minister?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: Last
night I discovered after reducing my estimates for the year 1922-3, that the payments for 1921-22 are not completed. Unfortunately for me, my deputy was not aware of that, and I cut the estimate for the present year not understanding that the expenditure is bound to be greater than I thought. Now, I discover that practically the whole vote of last year will be required, that there are accounts yet to be paid. It is only fair that the minister should be protected on accounts still unpaid.


Arthur Meighen: I quite agree, and I think it is well to warn the officials that

the information furnished should be correct.


Charles A. Stewart: Absolutely.


Arthur Meighen: But the fact that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) is furnished with incorrect information is no reason why the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) should refuse to give any information at all. Let him give the best information he can.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friends, who are well informed about all the departments, who have been in charge of those departments, must of necessity have more knowledge with respect to these matters than a new minister who has to depend absolutely upon the information given him. Once in a while we make a mistake in regard to information, and it is fair to assume that those amounts that were criticized severely last year, when they were under control of members opposite, were cut down to about the minimum. The hon. gentleman asks for the definite amount spent, but that cannot be ascertained, because the accountants in the departments do not know what the items outstanding may amount to. They show, to a certain date, what is paid. When you apply to a department for information of that sort it is sometimes hard to get it. I am not complaining of what happened to me. I will get along with the money, but it is fair that the committee should know that the accounts of the departments are not yet closed, and that all the accounts for 1921-22 are not yet in.


Arthur Meighen: There may be very
exceptional cases where the accounts would not be in, but the accountants would know that they were not in. Take the case the minister presents to us. Yesterday he came here with his deputy or officer, Mr. Camsell, beside him, and told the House this was the expenditure. Mr. Camsell goes back to the department and finds that that was not correct and that there was more. Are we going to understand that that information just came in between the time it was asked for in the House and the time the minister went back to his office, or this morning? Not at all. That information was all there yesterday, but the minister with his deputy came without it. That is what I am complaining about. The information the minister has was available yesterday.

Supply-Public Works


Charles A. Stewart: That is not a correct impression at all. The department does not know what is outstanding, though the officials may have an idea of it. Take the $22,000 which was cut last evening by $15,000; nearly all of it will be required to pay the accounts of 1921-22. But I cannot, nor can the accountant, tell definitely what the amount will be. It is perfectly reasonable to say I should have had that information yesterday, but I think it is fair to assume that the most of these votes are pretty well exhausted-at least that has been my experience-and those two particularly which were cut yesterday.


Arthur Meighen: With reference to an account such as the minister presented yesterday for publication, there is no excuse for any deputy or accountant not knowing, on the 28th day of April, what the amount required was. Everything was ordered-must have been ordered-long before, and though they may not be paid, the totals are there, and they know the particulars.


Charles A. Stewart: It is
pretty difficult for the accountant to know what the costs for publication will be.


Arthur Meighen: No, not will be, but
have been.


Charles A. Stewart: It is difficult to know what they have been. The fact remains that the accounts are not yet in. Of course, 31st March is the end of the fiscal year, but accounts come in after that date which are charged against the appropriations of the year just ended. There has been an extension. I did not allow for that yesterday; I know it to-day. Therefore I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that many of these accounts may turn up, and that a statement of expenditures down to to-day or to the date the estimates are made up, does not always show the true state of affairs.


Arthur Meighen: It ought to; if not, it should be for some very special reason; and if there is a special reason the committee should be told of it. What reason is there, in the world, why we do not know what money was spent last year on armouries-fittings and alterations?


Charles A. Stewart: I am not discussing the particular items.


Arthur Meighen: I know that. But my remarks apply to the minister's estimates. I have not the slightest doubt that if I had
five minutes with the secretary of the Mines Department, or with the deputy minister with the secretary present, they could tell me all the commitments last year for publication, though they might not all have been paid, but here we are now discussing the item "Armouries-'fittings and alterations" and the minister cannot tell us what has been paid.


Charles A. Stewart: I understand the votes will be practically all expended.


Arthur Meighen: Very well. There is no reason why the minister cannot tell us what has been spent for fittings and alterations of armaments.


John Warwick King: If my hon. friend wants that information, I have it here.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I was
asking for.


John Warwick King: No, I think not. My hon. friend was asking for appropriation not required for 1921-22.


Arthur Meighen: No.


John Warwick King: This is what I was asked to bring down last night, and I have brought it down to-day-a special return. With regard to the expenditures last year, I will give the House the items.


Arthur Meighen: Why does the hon.
gentleman say that? We know what the appropriation not required for 1922-23 is. It is right in the estimates, is it not?


Mr. FIELDING:: Yes, that is right.


Arthur Meighen: We know that, but we want to know what is not given in the estimates-the amounts spent last year.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend knows that last night the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) insisted that we give details of that amount, and I have brought it down to-day.


Hugh Guthrie: That is on the last
item.


William Stevens Fielding: There are two classes of information which the minister was publicly asked to give; that is, as to the estimates of last year in comparison with the amounts as set forth here. We are now just at the close of the fiscal year. That year is actually closed, and the accounts are still coming in, and the actual expenditure of the past year changes from day to day, and must change until the final day when it is closed; and, therefore, I am not
Supply-Public Works

surprised the minister is not able to give it to-day. But there is no difficulty in getting it, if it is desired. The minister could bring down to-morrow the actual expenditure to date-and the next day it would be a different thing altogether. There is no difficulty in obtaining it. If the hon. gentleman wants the actual expenditure on any item up to to-day he ought to have it, and it can be given, if desired.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister tell me whether any Order in Council has yet been passed extending the time for closing the books, and if so, to what date? The books are closed now.


William Stevens Fielding: No, my information is that the time will be extended till the 15th May, but, as a matter of fact, the Order in Council has not been passed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As the matter now stands, the account is closed.


William Stevens Fielding: No, because we have the power to expend the money.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thought we exercised that power in advance. However, I appreciate my hon. friend's delicacy in connection with the Order in Council.


William Stevens Fielding: They are very necessary.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite agree with that. While there is difficulty in stating what the exact payment will be, having reference to dates and that sort of thing, I have never experienced the same difficulty with reference to the commitments. I thought our officers understood what obligations they had entered into, and what contracts they had made. We do not want to know merely what is paid, but what has been paid already and also what we are obligated to pay. I think that is practically the same thing. I do not think my hon. friend wanted to hold himself down to the first question. The proper information is the cost of running this service for the last year, as represented by what has already been paid, and what may have to be paid.


John Warwick King: The total
amount authorized up to March 7, 1922, was $42,714, and the estimated expenditure from March 7, 1922, to the end of the last fiscal year is $4,286, making a total expenditure of $47,000.


Arthur Meighen: Last year we actually spent on armouries $47,000. This year we intend to spend $50,000. Is that right?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: What was the expenditure last year on experimental farms?


Mr. HUGHES:: In this item I see an
amount of $30,000 for Dominion public buildings generally. I wish to ask the minister whether from this amount or from the amount in item No. 146, "Maritime provinces generally," a sufficient sum can be taken to make some very necessary repairs to the post office at Montague, P.E.I. I do not wish to ask the Government to expend one dollar unnecessarily. I appreciate fully the present financial condition of the country; but necessary repairs to public buildings are very often the wisest economy. I have already communicated with the minister in regard to that building, which is very much in need of repairs. I see no special item in the Estimates for that work, and I should like the minister to see if it is possible to make the necessary repairs to that building.


John Warwick King: The expenditure on experimental farms, out of an appropriation of $100,000, was $81,043, to the 31st January, 1922.


Arthur Meighen: Flags?


John Warwick King: The expenditure on flags was $2,897.65 to the 31st January, 1922.
Replying to the hon. member for King's, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes), a few minutes ago I read out a statement showing how those expenditures were made. I do not think it will be possible to make a large expenditure from that appropriation on the public building to which the hon. member has referred.


James Joseph Hughes: I think the expenditure would be small. If it cannot be made from this appropriation, it would be desirable to have an appropriation made for the purpose.


John Warwick King: I see no reason
why the matter should not be considered.


Mr. DUFF:: I noticed the leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Meighen) asked how much money was expended last year on flags for public buildings. If he had been taking a proper interest in the proceedings of this House, he would have noticed an answer to a question which I asked earlier in the session. If he will look up Hansard, he will find a reply to that question giving the cost of all flags on Dominion public buildings to December 31, 1921. In this

Supply-Public Works
appropriation there is an item of $5,000 f.or flags for this year. When everybody is speaking of economy, this is an item the larger part of which might be saved to the Canadian taxpayer. I have no objection to every public building in this country possessing a flag, and I believe that flags should be flown, say on Dominion day, the King's birthday and other special occasions; but, in my opinion, it is a great waste of money that a flag should be flown on a public building every day of the year and, sometimes, not only flown all day, but left flying all night. This $5,000 may seem a small sum; but if you capitalize the $5,000 voted for this special purpose, that would mean $100,000, which would not only cover the cost of repairs to a number of small public buildings in this country, but build a number of post offices in rural districts. It is not necessary that flags should be flown on public buildings from one end of Canady to the other, day after day for 365 days in the year. I would suggest that the minister issue instructions to janitors and other people, who have charge of, flying flags on public buildings, that money could be saved to the country if instead of these flags being flown every-day, they were flown only on special occasions.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not sure but,
possibly, I have more faith in flags than has my hon. friend (Mr. Duff). I like to see the flag flying on our public buildings. When we stand on the border line between the United States and Canada, we find the American flag is everywhere in evidence, and we, in our modesty, do not make enough use of the flag of the nation. Far from complaining of the flag being flown 365 days of the year, I think, if we made a better use of the national flag on our public buildings, that would help to stimulate and interest us all in what, I hope, is the loyal spirit of the country generally.


William Duff: I do not think I will take
second place even to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in the matter of flying flags, because it is my business to fly flags more than it is, perhaps the business of any other member of Parliament. But I do not profess to be a flag-flapper in this country; I cannot see the necessity of flying flags every day in the year, and I do not think that to do so will make us more loyal. It is a useless expenditure of public money at this time, when, if I want $1,000 or $2,000 for repairing a breakwater, or establishing a postal route, or building a small post office in my constituency, or if any
other hon. member wants these things, we cannot get them, because, we are told, there is no money. We could very well do without expending money on flying flags except when it is absolutely necessary that flags should be flown. I do not think the flying of flags will make us any more loyal or disloyal. If we are to depend upon flying flags to maintain the loyalty of our people, 'then I say: Heaven help the people of Canada.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I was very glad to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) speak in favour of displaying the flag. We all know his loyalty, and we appreciate his sincerity in speaking in the way in which he has done. There is this to say for the flying of the flag. This country of ours is composed of a good many races; we live under one flag; we ought to venerate that flag, and one of the ways in which we can teach loyalty to our institutions under the Empire of which we form a part, is to have evidence, before the rising generation and newcomers to this country, the emblem of authority, of our country and our Empire. This Government surely can afford to pay for the flags necessary to be flown from the public buildings of the country. In some of the provinces the law requires the flag to be flown from all public schools. That is particularly the case in the West, and it is one of those things, small, I admit, and probably to some people of insignificant value, which in my judgment are of distinct importance as serving that very much desired end we all have in view, national unity. Let there be one thing on which all the people can agree,-the veneration of the flag of the Empire and of the country. Manitoba and Ontario are other provinces where the flag must fly on the public schools every day, and if these provinces can afford to put the flag on every schoolhouse in all sections of the country, this federal Parliament should be able to afford flags for all public buildings.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Buildings-rents, repairs, furniture, heating, etc., $4,959,600.
George Newcombe Gordon: It is proposed to
take this vote up item by item. I shall therefore read the first:
Ottawa Public Buildings-Dominion Observatory and Geodetic Survey Building-repairs, maintenance of grounds, etc., $5,000.


Hugh Guthrie: Does it cost $5,000 a year to keep this building in repair?
Supply-Public Works

Every year, it seems, we vote $5,000. The building is a very small one, and I should not think it would require that amount of money to keep it in repair.


John Warwick King: The expenditure varies. In 1920-21 it was $4,158, and last year as low as $2,683. Since 1919, however, the average appropriation has been $5,000.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not see where they spend it; however, I do not object.


Arthur Meighen: What was the total
amount spent last year out of the entire vote, taking all the items together?


John Warwick King: I have not the summary but I will give the detail for each item as we proceed. On the first item the amount spent last year was $2,683.42.


William Stevens Fielding: It must be understood, in all these cases where the expenditure of the past year is given, that the sums must necessarily be incomplete, and in some cases there will be substantial additions. If that be clearly understood there is no reason why the information my hon. friend asks for should not be given.


Arthur Meighen: I do not agree that they must necessarily be incomplete. They may be, but if they are there is no reason why the information should not be given. I think, however, that it is rather unlikely that these sums would be incomplete.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa Public Buildings-water, $42,000.
Horatio Clarence Hocken: What accounts for the increase in this item? Is the water any dearer this year?


John Warwick King: The expenditure last year was $35,000 as compared with $42,000 this year. The increase of $7,000 is due to the increased consumption of water in government-owned buildings, as a result of the taking over of the Daly building on Rideau street and the new Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment building. The quantity of water supplied during the first half of the year 1921-22, on which the estimates of 1922-23 are based, was greater than in the corresponding period in 1920-21.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Is this water purchased on meter rate?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: This is not the water rate for the city of Ottawa?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I understood it was for the special water in the Tally-Ho water bottles.


John Warwick King: Provision for
that water is in the House of Commons expenditure.
% Mr. MEIGHEN: That water is supplied to every department.


Robert King Anderson: I see further down in this vote $60,000 for water. What is that for?


John Warwick King: That is for
buildings throughout Canada, outside of Ottawa.


Arthur Meighen: What was spent last year?


John Warwick King: Spent $35,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Elevator attendants, $70,000
Arthur Meighen: What was the expenditure for the fiscal year on elevator attendants?


John Warwick King: 


William Stevens Fielding: The minister's information seems to have been prepared
4 p.m. up to the end of December with the expectation of the estimates coming on earlier, and as the actual expenditure will vary from day to day I quite understand why the minister may not have it. The figures given up to December 31 would be for only nine months.


Arthur Meighen: Some of the figures are given up to the end of the fiscal year; there is no use taking this one for nine months. All the commitments are known. Every man's salary is known; he is under the Civil Service Commission.


Mr. BOYS:: Does the minister say the total expenditure up to 31st March was $59,940?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Alves Boys: That is a pretty safe estimate, because I presume the minister would know exactly what these attendants are paid. That being so, why the increase of $10,000?


John Warwick King: Uniforms are not included in that amount-$2,205; and contingencies are estimated at $7,855.


Mr. GOOD:: Do I understand that included in this item of $70,000 for elevator

Supply-Public Works
attendants there are some other expenses not so described? If so, that would explain the apparent discrepancy.


John Warwick King: There is no
discrepancy. There is temporary help, and that is provided for in the contingencies.


Arthur Meighen: I understand the minister to say that last year's expenditure was $59,940. If that is the case, is there any reason to anticipate a larger expenditure this year? While in the total vote there is a slight reduction from last year, the main estimate this year is higher. What we want to know is whether there cannot be a reasonable reduction in these main estimates.


John Warwick King: I have given the expenditure on salaries for last year; with contingencies, uniforms and wages, it would amount to $70,000.


Arthur Meighen: Then the minister has given us wrong information. He said the expenditure last year was $59,940; now he puts it at $70,000. Which is right?


John Warwick King: The $59,940 was for salaries only. With uniforms and contingencies the estimated expenditure last year was $70,000. We are asking for the same amount this year.


Arthur Meighen: That is clear now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa public buildings-/lighting, including roads and bridges, $90,000.
Arthur Meighen: What was the expenditure last year?


John Warwick King: Up to the
31st December, 1921, we had expended $69,059.44, but it is expected that the full $90,000 will be expended during the current year.


Arthur Meighen: I really do not like these statements about expecting certain amounts to be expended. A certain amount was spent or committed up to the end of the year; if there is special reason to expect anything else this year, we should know that reason. The mere statement that it is expected it will all be needed is of no value to the committee. What is the actual amount that we are committed to pay? There is no reason why it should not be known; if the information is not here, we should adjourn until we get it.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend is asking for the expenditure to date. The notes which I am using were prepared, I
believe, before I entered the Government.
I am giving the expenditure up to December 31, 1921, and it is expected that the $90,000 will be expended. I have not the accounting of it.


Arthur Meighen: It may be true that this information was prepared before the minister came into the department, but that does not absolve him from the duty of bringing his information up to date, because information up to the end of December is almost valueless to this committee. Now that he is coming at the end of April to get his estimates through Parliament he should have the information up to 31st March; there is no reason why he should not have it here.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the item carry?


Arthur Meighen: If this item is to carry and all items are to carry without any information at all, this committee might just as well adjourn and go home. There is really no consideration being given to these estimates; they are just asked to flow by at the word of the minister. Now, I am not going to be meticulous about a single item, but if the minister is in the same position about all these items as he is about this one, I do not see what value this committee is.


John Warwick King: My right hon. friend knows I am following the usual procedure in this House.


Arthur Meighen: No, I know the minister is not.


John Warwick King: To revise these estimates would mean a good deal of work. I have no objection to having any particular item stand over so that the information may be brought up to date, but I am told we are following the usual practice.


Arthur Meighen: The minister need not come to Parliament and in his first session tell me that it has been the usual practice to give information as to expenditure only up to four months before the date on which the information is given. If this was the month of January, it would be all right; the figures would run up to December 31 and might not be absolutely accurate; but the minister could give them, together with the reasons for any inaccuracies. But to come to the end of April and say that because these figures were made up in December the minister is doing the usual thing and cannot take time to bring them up to date-that surely
Supply-Public Works

is a statement that does not do very much credit to the minister. Last night he gave us this information as to item after item up to the end of the fiscal year. When it came to Ontario he said he did not have it, but gave a total which turned out to be wrong. We asked that the item stand until to-day, and he comes back to-day with the full information. Now, all we ask is that he do as to this what he has done as to Ontario. It is no answer, and it is not in accordance with the facts, to say that it has been the practice in this Parliament to give the House information only up to four months before the time the information is given.


William Alves Boys: There is no trouble at all in getting it. I have sent for and hold in my hand a copy of the Canada Gazette, the second number for April, where the expenditure for the minister's department is shown in detail up to the end of February, $8,640,615. If we got the Canada Gazette of just two weeks ago, we should find there the total expenditure in connection with public works up to March 31. Certainly the Finance Department has that information, and the minister could easily get it on the items we are discussing.


Arthur Meighen: If the total is given, the details must be known to the officers of the department.


John Warwick King: Some items are brought up to 31st December, and some later. I am giving them as I have them here. I regret they are not all brought up to the end of the year.


William Alves Boys: When the minister says the items are not brought up to the end of the year, he is referring to the portfolio before him, but the Finance Department has an absolutely accurate statement of the cash disbursements not only up to 28th February but to the end of the year. I think it is the issue of the Canada Gazette for the second week in April which has the complete cash statement up to the 31st of March. I have sent for it and will give the minister the total. The total is all it gives, but we want the items that make up that total.


Arthur Meighen: This is getting to be a farce-


William Duff: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: And the objector to the flags agrees with me.


William Duff: I wish to object to any such remarks from the hon. leader of the Opposition. I think that is a contemptible remark to make, and it could only come from a contemptible gentleman in this House. He is Meighen by name and mean by nature.


Arthur Meighen: We will not disturb
the level of the discussion by paying any attention to the hon. member.


William Duff: You have got down to a pretty low level.


Arthur Meighen: It has been shown and, of course, hon. members have known, that the totals of these departmental expenditures are not only known but recorded up to the end of the month. Now we are voting the details. Let the minister be fair. He must agree that his department knows the expenditure for each detail. Otherwise, how can his department supply the Finance Department with the totals-you cannot get the totals unless you have the details. The minister may not have the details before him, but they are in his department, and he should have that*infoi-mation here before he asks the committee to vote this money.


William Charles Good: May I make a suggestion? This seems to me a very unfortunate condition of affairs. In order to satisfy everybody, would it not be better to let the item stand over until next week when the minister can have the information for the committee.


Arthur Meighen: I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion, and further, to go on with any estimates the minister may have complete.


William Alves Boys: May I ask what is the practice in the payment of these amounts? Are they paid by the Finance Department in every instance, or some by the Finance Department and some by the minister's own department? If they are all paid by the minister's own department, he does not have to go to the Finance Department, for he will have a complete record himself. I presume that when the Deputy Minister of Finance prepares this statement in the Gazette, what he has before him is the expenditure in detail in the Public Works and other departments; this he audits in some way, then signs the statement, and it is printed. If that is the case, the minister must have in his own department the information we are asking for.


John Warwick King: We have the details in the department and the totals are

Supply-Public Works
supplied to the Finance Department. There is no question about that.


William Alves Boys: Then they can easily be got.


Arthur Meighen: Are there any of these items on which the minister can give us the details? If so, I have no objection at all to going on with them.
Item stands. .
Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia, $182,680.
Mr. MEIGHEN-Can the minister give us the expenditure for last year?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not see how the minister can give the expenditure for last year, because these votes are not for continuing the service. Wherever you are continuing the service, you could give the information as to each item.


Arthur Meighen: There would be only three in which he could give the information; the rest are new.


Hugh Guthrie: It would appear that last year the total amount voted for harbours and rivers of Nova Scotia was $365,000, and that of that the amount not spent was $270,000, leaving the actual expenditure for last year the comparatively small amount of $95,000, in round figures. The proposal this year is to double that and bring the expenditure up to $182,000. We treated these improvements just as we treated our expenditure on public buildings. It was considered that they should be pared down to the very core, and that unless an expenditure on harbours and rivers was an absolute necessity, it should not be made at all. We treated post offices and all public buildings in the same way; not a single new building appeared in the estimates anywhere. This year public buildings have been similarly treated in the estimates. Glancing over them I see no provision for new public buildings. But here is a proposal to double last year's expenditure for harbours and rivers. I think we should have a good deal of information before we agree to doubling our expenditure in the province of Nova Scotia, notwithstanding the fact that Nova Scotia did return a solid block of supporters of this Government.


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. gentleman's idea is that this expenditure is being doubled, he is entirely mistaken. If it is thought desirable to have a statement of the actual expenditure on those items, and the hon. member wishes the vote to stand
over, I have no objection, but I am perfectly sure he is mistaken in 'his calculations.


Mr. HANSON:: If you deduct the amount of $270,000 appropriations not required for 1922-23, from $365,900, the amount in the third column, it leaves exactly $95,000, representing what has been expended. That seems to me to follow as day follows night. If it does not, the estimates are entirely misleading.


William Stevens Fielding: This term "appropriations not required" is misleading hon. gentlemen. It does not mean anything of the kind. It is a mere book-keeping entry in balancing the accounts so that we may show the total appropriation of last year on one side and the estimated expenditure of the new year; but it does not imply that all that sum was voted and not expended. If my hon. friends have got that idea I hope the minister will bring down a statement showing what the total expenditure for that item in Nova Scotia is. It certainly does not mean what has been contended.


Arthur Meighen: I do not wish the Minister of Finance to think I understood that because an item appeared in the "appropriation not required" for this year none of the money was spent last year. I understand the matter exactly as the Minister of Finance does. It means that the items that were in last year amounting to that sum are not in this year.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly.


Arthur Meighen: But still we ought to have-and I understand we do have it or the minister would not have called this item-details of what actually was spent.


George Newcombe Gordon: The first item is:
Baddeck-repairs to wharf, $3,500.


Arthur Meighen: These are new items and of course we cannot ask for details of what was spent last year because there was no expenditure.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under the head "Harbours and Rivers, Nova Scotia" we ought to know what was spent.


Arthur Meighen: We ought to know what was spent under the head of this entire item, No. 155, and charged to that vote last year.


John Warwick King: I can have that information prepared and brought down at the next sitting, I have not got it here.
Supply-Public Works


Arthur Meighen: Then the item had better stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Prince Edward Island, $39,700.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister give us the information as to the amount spent last year on the total of this item.


John Warwick King: If my right hon. friend is insistent on this information it will require considerable time before we will be able to proceed with these estimates. I understand it is an unusual request, one that has not been made before, and compliance with it will involve a considerable amount of work. This item will therefore have to stand like the other one.


Mr. CANNON:: Before the item is allowed to stand, will the minister state to this oommittee what official in his department is supposed to prepare the information respecting the estimates for the Public Works Department to be submitted when we go into committee on them and particulars regarding them are asked for by hon. members?


John Warwick King: The staff of officials in the department known as the "Estimates Branch" prepare this information for use in the House.


Lucien Cannon: Then that staff ought to be improved.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest that, next year, if the minister hopes to be in his office, he adopt the plan that I feel certain from memory was adopted in the Interior Department, in accordance with which the items appeared in a series of columns and there was one which gave the expenditure, if not for the year before, up to the last date on which it could be given, and that applied throughout.


William Stevens Fielding: My recollection is that the information is not commonly given. I am not objecting; in any case where an hon. member desires information it is our business to produce it; but I rather think the question asked in this case is an unusual one. The estimates are brought down and weeks elapse before the minister is able to bring them before this committee, and in the interval there is a change every day in the amount expended. The information sought by my hon. friend is not usually asked. I am not objecting to it. I think perhaps in a particular case when an hon. member asks for such information, I would give it to him even though this involves

holding the estimates over to meet his wishes. I repeat that I am not objecting; I believe in giving the fullest information to the House, even when it is not reasonable.


Arthur Meighen: Surely the Minister of Finance does not suggest that it is unreasonable to ask for the amount expended the year before, months after the year has expired, subject to any reservation that might reasonably have to be made. The minister says it is not usual. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. I will not stand here and say it is always done. I know I have given the information frequently. And I do say this-it is manifestly the most important information the committee could ask. It may be that information manifestly the most important is not always asked, but I know it is often asked, and I know it should be asked. The minister says the information will have to be revised from day to day. Not at all. If we came here a month from now no one would expect information but to the end of March. If we were here a month earlier, no one would expect the information quite to the end of March, but we should expect it to the end of February. We expect such information as makes up the total that is furnished to the Department of Finance. That is all we ask. That does not need any day-to-day revision at all. I am not doing this-I do not think the Minister of Finance had any impression that I have-to embarrass the minister in the least. I want the information-and it should go forth adequately-as to what was spent last year for the purpose of throwing some light on what should be voted now. There has been very much reduction already and in the light of the information to be given there may possibly be more estimates to be reduced.


William Stevens Fielding: The information that
is asked for is usually given in the Auditor General's Report at the end of the year. My right hon. friend is trying to anticipate by a year. That may be a very commendable object, but I am sure the question is a very unusual one. I cannot recall an occasion when the request has been made as my hon friend makes to-day. However, I am not going to object to it; members of Parliament should be given all the information they desire.


William Alves Boys: Will it involve any extra
work to give the information to the end of any month? Because, if I am not mis-

Supply-Public Works
informed, under the prevailing practice, a statement is prepared at the end of every month containing all these details and is handed to the Finance Department. Of course, if the preparation of such a statement meant costing the country a great deal of money there might be some objection to it. But if I am rightly informed no more work will be involved in preparing such a statement for the House than is necessitated by the preparation of the statement given to the Finance Department?


William Stevens Fielding: The information given to the Finance Department consists only of totals, in order to make a general statement of the financial condition of the country; but if each item is to be set forth from time to time giving what has been expended in every case up to a given date it will involve a good deal of work and will not serve any good purpose.


William Alves Boys: If I am wrong I want to
be corrected, but it seems to me that before the Deputy Minister of Finance puts his signature to the statement referred to he must have an itemized account from every department showing exactly what the expenditure is. The Minister of Finance shakes his head. I realize that he knows far more about this matter than I do. It would seem to me, however, to be a most extraordinary thing that the Deputy Minister of Finance should certify, as he does over his own signature, the total expenditure for each department without having the details supplied to him from each department showing what the total for the month is. They give it for the month and for the year. Let me give one illustration; we are dealing now with the Department of Public Works. The statement I have is only down to 28th February, but there is one available for 31st March and it is certainly published, for I saw it myself. We find that for the month of February the total is given at $948,995.92. Is it not perfectly manifest that there must be a statement with details furnished which permits of arriving at that total?


William Stevens Fielding: 
William Alves Boys: Quite so.


William Stevens Fielding: And we get those
statements in the other departments, and have to refer to them for details.


William Alves Boys: I quite agree with the hon. minister, and, if I rightly understand the matter, this relates to cash items. I am told that, between the departments, they have some credit system, for which reason these statements are not complete, and, although the fiscal year ends 31st March, because of the credit system prevailing between the departments we cannot be certain of the totals until these credit systems are squared in some way. I quite appreciate that, but the minister does not get my point. All I am saying is that in the department we are now dicussing, which is Public Works, for the month of February the total expense was $948,995.92, and for the year, up to that date, $8,098,664.82. Surely there must be some statement with details which shows how these figures are arrived at, and we should have that statement.


William Stevens Fielding: That statement is in the Public Works Department, and you can take the totals and compare them without much labour, but if you are going over the pages of the estimates, taking all the estimates, taking every item every month, all that has been expended, all that I can say is that, while you have been anticipating the report of the Auditor General, you are going to add a considerable amount to the labour of the department. Whether the game is worth the candle is a question.


William Alves Boys: The only statement I am asking for is the one on file with the department, which is completed for the purpose of this financial statement published every month, which statement is given by the particular department to the Finance Department. I admit it might be a month old, but it could not be more than a month old. That is not going to entail any extra labour on the part of anybody, but will give the information we want.


William Stevens Fielding: In view of the desire of the hon. gentleman, I am quite content that the minister shall make an effort to procure it, and, if that is the disposition of the hon. gentleman with regard to this
Supply-Public Works

whole estimate, we might as well pass this estimate and get on to another, so that I will ask the House-


John Warwick King: If we give the hon. leader of the Opposition the total expenditure on each vote, rather than each item, would that be sufficient?


Arthur Meighen: I would not feel like holding the House, if the hon. minister can give the totals, but the item would be more useful if we had the details. I refer to the totals for Nos. 144 and 145. If the hon. gentleman is getting the details for to-morrow, one by one, there is no reason why it should not be brought down.


John Warwick King: I have not the total vote, but that can be had within a reasonable time. If the total vote for each item is required, it will take up a considerable time.


Arthur Meighen: If it is going to delay the work of Parliament, I will not ask for it, but if the hon. minister will give the totals for each vote in item 144, without going to any special labour, up to as late a date as he has it for each item, so that we can get the fair estimate for the year, that will be satisfactory.


William Duff: Take for instance item 156, referring to Prince Edward Island; there is absolutely no information which the minister can bring down to-morrow, or at any time, with regard to all those items. There is a new item for repairs to wharfs and breakwaters, and consequently the minister has no information in his office, except what is contained in his estimate. Therefore, there is no reason why that item should not pass. Then take the item for Nova Scotia, $182,000 odd, every item is n$w except harbours and rivers generally. Every item from Quebec to Yarmouth Bar -I am not referring to any particular bar -is new. For that reason, I think we could very well pass these items, and if the hon. gentleman wants any information about "Harbours and rivers generally, $60,000," the minister could bring down the information and details with regard to the item. It is impossible to get information as to every item in the Nova Scotia vote. The same remark applies to New Brunswick. The only item with reference to which the minister has any information as to the expenditure is the fifth item in the list, "Harbours and rivers generally, $40,000." The first item, "Black's Harbour, wharf extension, $8,200; Burnt Church, repairs to wharf, $900," and every item in the list is

new work, except "Harbours and rivers generally." The same remark applies to Quebec. Every item in that long list totalling $396,000 on page 40 is new work except "Harbours and rivers generally, $75,000." What is the use of moving that the committe rise and report progress on the estimates of the Public Works Department when we can get through a lot of work? If the Opposition desires certain details, the information can be obtained. The same remarks apply to Ontario. I notice that the Government have been good to that province. They give them $398,000 odd. All these items are new and some of them very large. The amount for North Bay is $30,000, and Owen Sound $34,000, Port Colborne, $75,000. That is almost as much as the whole vote for Nova Scotia. I have no objection to it, but the minister can give no information about it. The only item which he can give information about is the fifth item, "Harbours and rivers generally, $65,000." The same remark applies to Manitoba. There is only one item there, "Harbours and rivers generally, $15,000," on which this committee can get any information. Saskatchewan and Alberta, item 161, are given $21,000 for harbour and rivers generally. That is the only item for those provinces, and I presume if the Opposition want the information they can get it on the whole item. Then the vote for British Columbia is $193,000, all for new work, except $95,000. It seems to me there is no necessity for us to delay this committee. We can pass all the items with the exception of those to which I have referred for harbours and rivers generally.


Mr. GOULD:: While these large sums are under consideration, I should like to interject the remark that we all have recollections of the time when agriculture stood up and asked for certain appropriations and assistance in the various districts and there was more or less criticism from different quarters. The items under discussion pertain particularly to urban centres-


William Duff: Not at all.


Oliver Robert Gould: To a great extent.


William Duff: No.


Oliver Robert Gould: The agricultural districts provide a very fair proportion of the funds required to meet these expenditures. As the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) suggests, the Manitoba and Saskatchewan appropriation in this connection might well be continued because it is a small amount.

Supply-Public Works
As a matter of fact, I think those provinces deserve a little more money in this connection.


William Duff: How many breakwaters are there in Saskatchewan?


Oliver Robert Gould: The amount voted for the province of Ontario under the present appropriation should satisfy even the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland), who protests vigorously that Ontario does not receive her fair proportion of the revenue. It is only just to interject the remark that agriculture, while it has not said very much this afternoon in this regard, has its eyes open, and is following the debate with much interest.


Mr. MacLAREN :: Is it possible for the minister to bring forward item No. 157, New Brunswick, this afternoon? It would be convenient if he could do so.


William Stevens Fielding: I think we shall have to adopt the same principle as regards all hon. members. If we select a province and select an item for the convenience of one member, others will want other items brought on. I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) is reasonable. There are many items that might go through without discussion; but if my hon. friends opposite wish to delay them, let them all be delayed.


Arthur Meighen: The point which the hon. member makes is that, in connection with items that are wholly new, items that are not a continuation of last year's appropriations, we might go on; but the exceptions are far more than he stated. There are always the appropriations not required. In connection with the new items, it is of some importance to know what was spent under the whole appropriation of last year; in fact, that is of more importance than any other single piece of information. Consequently, I would not very seriously object to going on with the new items; but I do not think any time would be saved, because it takes very little time to have these considered and passed after we have information as to the total amount spent last year under the appropriation.


William Stevens Fielding: I think, instead of putting the items through en bloc, we can hold over, not the whole item, but any particular item for a province, concerning which item any further information is needed. Subject to that, we might go on and put them through.


Arthur Meighen: I will illustrate what I mean. Supposing it turns out that in New Brunswick, although $118,000 was voted, we spent only $42,000. In that event, it would seem to be the part of wisdom to consider the items very carefully before voting all these sums for new items. The same thing applies to Ontario, Quebec and every other province.


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend will realize that each item must stand on its merit, and that what was spent last year will make no difference. If a particular wharf requires repairs, the question, whether we are willing or not to vote the money for that purpose, must depend on its merits.


William Duff: These are not new items. These are wharves or breakwaters constructed, perhaps, ten, twenty or thirty years ago, and the amounts put in the estimate for their repair are very necessary. During the last seven or eight years, it would have been a great deal better had more money been spent on breakwaters in this country. These breakwaters were allowed to go to wreck and ruin, with the result that larger amounts have to be inserted in the estimates. These large amounts would not have been necessary had proper care been exercised when the breakwaters needed slight repairs. There is, however, no reason why items which are new should not be passed. The leader of the Opposition is quite right in asking for information as to the total amount expended. That can be given on Monday when the Minister of Public Works will also explain expenditures in connection with harbours, rivers and improvements generally; but I do not think it is fair that the committee should rise and report progress on these new items when no information can be given by the department.


William Stevens Fielding: My suggestion is that we return to the question of harbours and rivers, take each item individually, and if, in any case, there is a desire for further information which can be given later, we can hold over that item.


Arthur Meighen: If there is no other
minister ready to go on,-


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, there is.


Arthur Meighen: Then I think it would be better to go on with a minister who can give information and let the other minister come back later.

Supply-Justice


William Stevens Fielding: Very well. We will call an item of the estimates of the Minister of Justice, and take up his estimates.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest that we take New Brunswick.


William Duff: Nothing doing.


William Stevens Fielding: We will not agree to that.


William Duff: The right hon. gentleman does not get anything like that off on us.


Murray MacLaren: As regards New
Brunswick, my remarks were going to refer to what was not in the estimate.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
Administration of Justice-Supreme Court of Canada:-
Contingencies and disbursements, salaries of officers, (sheriffs etc.), books, magazines, etc., for judges, not exceeding $300, $7,500.
Law books and books of reference for library, and binding of same, $10,000.
Printing, binding and distributing court reports, $10,000.
Arthur Meighen: Would the minister give us last year's expenditures on these and also explain why an increase is asked for?


Hon.   S@: The registrar reports as follows:
I am asking for an additional $2,000 on account of law books. There have been no changes in the requisition for this item for some fifteen years, notwithstanding the increase in the price of law books, but as a matter of fact I have been running behind in recent years and carrying over some of my obligations into the next succeeding year, and have not bought so freely as I felt the requirements of the library demanded. For this purpose I require the additional amount.
You will also see that the amount for printing and binding the Supreme Court reports is now placed at $10,000. This item practically appears only by reason of the requirements of the Audit Act as the results from the sales of the reports to the Law societies and others, plus the value of the stock on hand for future requirements, will equal the amount of this vote.
It is only a question of audit.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is just one thing to which I should like to draw the minister's attention. It is something that I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is interested in and that again shows the necessity for a reform which we have already discussed. I think my hon. friend and I are entirely at one as regards the necessity of the Finance Department having some real control over expenditures and the real necessity of having a proper system of pre-audit. The letter that has been read from the registrar shows that that officer of the Supreme Court does not

conceive himself bound by the appropriations which are voted for his department. Instead of keeping within the appropriation, he goes on and carries over liabilities. I am surprised to see that in connection with such a high tribunal. The Supplementary Estimates which were tabled last night show that on this very head, as to the further amount required for publication of the Supreme Court reports, they overdrew their account last year no less than $6,000, and I suppose the Minister of Finance has to pay it. How long has the matter been dealt with in the way the registrar points out? Are we cleaning up everything now with that $6,000?


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: When we come to the supplementary estimates I shall be able to explain that. This has been running for years now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It has been
running behind some years and that is what I want to find out.


Arthur Meighen: I would gather from the letter from Registrar Cameron that all the money was spent last year on each of these three items, and more than the vote.


Lomer Gouin: More than the
vote.


Arthur Meighen: Then I would suggest to the minister, that, in pre-election years at least, he instruct the registrar to keep within the vote and not spend the money himself and have it charged against the late administration that did not authorize him to do so at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exchequer Court of Canada, $10,833.34.
Henry Lumley Drayton: The item does not seem objectionable on the face of it. How much of the vote was spent last year?


Lomer Gouin: The contingencies were all spent. The money voted was sufficient to meet all obligations for the year. The details are found at page L-7 of the Auditor General's Report.


Mr. POWER:: Last year when this item came up several members from Quebec city and district called the attention of the minister to the fact that in Quebec city at the present time in Admiralty cases the pleaders have to pay for justice. When a case comes up we must pay the fees of the judge from Montreal before he will consent to sit. I do not remember how much it is per day, but we have to pay

Supply

Justice
it, and also the travelling expenses, before the judge will come to Quebec to deal with the matter. Judge Routhier, the judge in Admiralty in Quebec, has never been replaced. The Hon. Mr. Doherty, the late Minister of Justice, stated on several occasions that the matter was before him and that he intended to give it his best consideration. I hope the present Minister of Justice will see his way to appoint a judge in Quebec. At present Judge MacLennan comes from Montreal and must be paid his fees in advance before any cases are tried before him.


Lomer Gouin: By 9-10 George
V, Chap. 59, section 2, it was provided:
No salary shall be paid to any local judge in Admiralty of the Exchequer Court under the provisions of this section who is a judge of any provincial Superior Court. Provided, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any Local Judge in Admiralty who was or is appointed before the coming into force of this act.
In November and December last judgeships in Quebec and Nova Scotia became vacant by the death of Sir Adolphe Routhier and the retirement of Judge Drys-dale, and their successors, Judge MacLennan and Judge Mellish, receive no salaries as Judges in Admiralty. I did not know that the pleaders had to pay the fees of the judges. I will see what can be done to remedy this condition of affairs, which is somewhat extraordinary.


Charles Gavan Power: The situation is simply this, that before the judge will sit he must be paid his fees.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: On what date was Judge MacLennan appointed?


Lomer Gouin: I do not know the exact date, but I can ascertain and inform my hon. friend later on. He was appointed last fall.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yukon Territory, $36,800.
Lomer Gouin: There has been a slight increase in salaries. The former court stenographer, George Craig, received a living allowance of $1,800. Mr. A. G. Blankman has been temporarily appointed, at a salary of $2,100,
5 p.m. to replace Mr. Craig, who was retired under the Calder Act. Owing to reduction of business a decrease of $4,000 appears feasible in miscellaneous expenditures, which during the last few years have been going down.


Arthur Meighen: How much was spent of the vote last year?


Lomer Gouin: The first three items were spent in full. Of the $20,000 voted for miscellaneous expenditures only $2,000 was spent.


Arthur Meighen: If only $2,000 was expended out of a vote of $20,000, it seems that a reduction of more than $4,000 is warranted this year. With the diminishing population of the Yukon, the per capita cost of administration has really become very great. I know that only a portion of it comes under the Department of Justice; a greater proportion comes under the Public Works and the Interior. I am safe in saying that a reduction of almost half was made in the Interior estimates, and in the Public Works Department the maintenance of that long telegraph line is the chief item. We find that the Yukon is costing us possibly $23 per head for the administration of justice alone. It is, of course, abnormal. I know the minister's difficulty: judges have been appointed for the Yukon; sheriffs have been appointed, and it is difficult to interfere with them. In fact, the judge is appointed for life, and unless he were transferred, any interference would be unfair. But I would ask the minister to consider, and to make effective at the earliest possible day if he deems it wise, the union for judicial purposes of the Yukon with British Columbia. If that was done, a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia could attend to the requirements of the Yukon, with great saving to the national treasury. As it is now, we keep up an entire judicial system there for what is really the population of i very modest-sized town.


Lomer Gouin: We spent only
$2,000 last year. I assure my hon. friend that we will not spend any more than is absolutely necessary.


Arthur Meighen: Would it not be well
to reduce the item to $10,000? The minister is new, and I do not like to place too much temptation in his way.


Mr. BLACK:: The right hon. leader
of the Opposition is correct in his suggestion that the population served by the courts of Yukon territory is much smaller than it was, but I do not think it may exactly be compared to that of a modest-sized town. The Yukon covers a very large area in which very important interests are involved; and I am not prepared to agree with the leader of the Opposition that the needs of justice
Supply-Justice

would be well served by uniting, as it were, the judicial matters of the Yukon with those of British Columbia. It would entail the travelling of judges from British Columbia into /that territory at various seasons of the year, and at great expense. In the earlier days of the Yukon we had there a comparatively large population. Of recent years the business of the mining of placer gold has decreased; the mines have passed into the hands of large companies which mine by means of up-to-date machinery at a smaller margin of profit than had [DOT] been made by individual miners. But I am happy to be able to tell the committee that in very recent times,-since 1919-large discoveries of silver ore have been made in that territory; industry is fast developing, and I think I am quite within the mark when I predict that within two or three years we will have in the Yukon some of the largest silver-mining camps in the world. The administration of the Yukon is now carried on on the most economic basis-too much so, in some cases, for efficiency. One branch of the service that has been properly maintained there through all these trying years has been that of the Department of Justice, and I submit that it would be a mistake at this time to cut down this estimate. If the money is not required, it will not be spent. Notwithstanding the fact that the present administration is a new one, I myself have every confidence in the Department of Justice of this Dominion, under whatever party may be in power. I submit that the estimate should be allowed to stand as it is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-expenses of litigated matters conducted within the Department of Justice, $33,000.
Lomer Gouin: i This amount varies from year to year and the expenditure cannot accurately be foreseen. The expenditure for 1919 was $1,200; for 1920, $7,600; for 1921, $13,000. The usual annual vote is $13,000. The additional $20,000 is asked this year to provide for the expenses of the reference to the Privy Council of the Newfoundland-Labrador boundary question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-expenses under Pecuniary Claims Convention with U.S.A., $10,000.
Lomer Gouin: For some years
previous to the war the annual appropriation for this service was $25,000, which covered the expenses of preparing the Canadian schedule of claims and one-half the

remuneration of the United States and Canadian arbitrators, Mr. Charles Anderson and Sir Charles Fitzpatrick. As negotiations are pending between Great Britain and the United States for the preparation of a second schedule of claims, and a resumption of the activities of the convention is hoped for during the year, it becomes necessary to provide for working expenses. We have quite a list of claims that are to be submitted to that tribunal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I must confess I never heard of this convention before. Would the minister be good enough to explain just what it is?


Lomer Gouin: The Pecuniary
Claims Convention between Great Britain and the United States providing for the settlement by arbitration of pecuniary claims outstanding between the two countries was signed at Washington on 18th August, 1910. The first schedule of claims was prepared and several cases argued before the tribunal in 1914 and awards made in many cases, while in a few cases the awards have not been yet made. A second schedule was in course of preparation when the war interrupted the proceedings. The United States national arbitrator is Mr. Chandler Anderson; the Canadian, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick; the umpire is Mr. Fromageot, of Paris. Under the arrangements the Canadian Government is responsible for payment of half of the expenses and remuneration of the two arbitrators and the umpire at $40 per diem during the sittings of the tribunal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penitentiaries, $1,670,900
Lomer Gouin: The main items of increase are as follows:
$69,500-Statutory increases, retiring allowances and extra officers due to increased population which amounts to 421 inmates in the first 8 months of fiscal year 1921-22, or about twice what it was in the whole of the last fiscal year, (1920-21.) Statutory increases 1922-23 will total $18,690. Gratuities paid in 1920-21 totalled $71,709.41 and gratuities paid to date in the fiscal year 1921-22 total $20,710.00.
12 times current month's pay roll
amounts to	$559,295	76
Add statutory increases payable
1922-23	
18,690	00Amount available for retiring gratuities and employment of any extra officers	
38,014	24
Amount asked in above estimate
under this sub-head	 $616,000 00
$55,000-Increase asked for maintenance of convicts. This is necessary to provide for the food, clothing and medicines necessary for in-

Supply-Justice
creased population. Population, March 31, 1920, 1,931; March 31, 1921, 2,150 ; November 30, 1921, 2,571. Most of this increase has taken place in the past few months and shows every sign of continuing in increasing ratio. In the month of November last, 93 was the total increase of all penitentiaries.
$133,000-Increase asked for completion of buildings now under construction, or urgently required, due altogether to the increase in population. Less than four years ago our population was 1,463, and it is about 2,600 today.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not wish to criticise these items at all. No doubt the money is necessary, but there is one matter I wish to bring to the minister's attention.. I have received from different organizations a number of communications in support of prison reform which I am going to hand to the minister. Canada is away behind the times in this respect. After all is said and done, the war taught Canada a lesson, and particularly did the Red Cross, which through its noble work discharged seventy-five per cent of the soldiers passing through its hands, fit to go back to the front. The population of these penal institutions are an economic wastage in Canada. Many men steal to-day trivial things who would not think of doing it if it were not for the hard times and being out of work, and they are sent to these institutions. Their wives and children suffer and are left to shift for themselves.
I would like to know from the minister what is being done in Canada along the line of prison reform. I appreciate the fact that this Government has been in office only a few months, and I suppose the minister has been over-worked and perhaps may not be in a position to give me any information to-day, but he has a number of technical experts in his department and during the recess at all events they should be able to gather some information along this line. What about the commission's findings being adopted at Kingston?
I received a pamphlet and report from the federal government at Washington only the other day showing what they are doing all over the United States to restore these people to a useful civil life. Fancy!-a postman, a returned soldier in my constituency, who stole $1.27 out of a letter because he was paid a small salary and his bonus was cut off-and it was a deplorable thing to cut the war bonus off postmen's salaries -was hauled before the police court, and although a petition was presented in his favour by the Salvation Army signed by one hundred and twenty-seven business men on the street where he delivered letters,
this young soldier, hard-up, unable to make ends meet on his small salary-coal $15.50 a ton and so on-was sent down by the magistrate for three years. The magistrate said, "I have no discretion," he felt he had to send the man down. This young soldier has a wife and family. In the United States, in the Old Land, in Australia, and New Zealand, they are taking up prison reform in a very vigorous way. The minister should send his experts down to Atlanta, Georgia, to see what they are doing there. A prisoner works at some useful trade and can earn up to $18 a week, and his wife and children do not suffer. Toronto has gone into this question of prison reform and has established two municipal farms, at a cost of nearly $1,000,000, on Yonge street, one for men and another for women. This jail farm is about 800 acres in extent, and I wish some of the Progressives would come up and see that work. They would learn something useful on prison reform because it is an up-to-date farm run in a model way.	There is a farm for
women as well, about two miles from the men's farm and similarly conducted. They can earn a living there and some of them receive $12 and $14 a week for the work they do. Their families get what they can in money. I only mention this to-day because I am afraid that a number of the men appointed at the head of these penitentiaries have not the necessary technical qualifications. I do not say this or that government is blameable, but we had a government of the same type of politics before and I know some of the appointments they made. All the governments have been in the same category and have done little or nothing for modern prison reform. The adoption of patronage in connection with this particular department is entirely wrong-there should be no patronage at all. I know a liveryman, a man who kept a livery stable in an Ontario town, who was appointed to one of these institutions out west. He was afterwards transferred to one of the largest institutions in another province. He had no technical training and was appointed on the patronage basis.


Lucien Cannon: Would my hon. friend
permit me a question? Does he mean that this Government or the late government was exercising patronage to send people to the penitentiary?


Thomas Langton Church: I do not want to answer for any government-all governments are alike in the matter of patronage. Patron-
Supply-Justice

age is the only thing they consider when making these important appointments. Politics should be entirely eliminated when it comes to the consideration of appointing leaders and officials for institutions of this kind. The trouble is that when commitments are made to these institutions the families of those sent down in many cases are the ones that suffer and many become a charge on the municipalities and charities of this country. I am not blaming the present Government and my friends opposite in connection with this matter any more than past governments, but I do say that we want to get somewhere on this particular question. The Government, in the recess of Parliament, should get together and take this matter up and start some prison reforms. Toronto is doing this reformation work in the interests of society. It is a prime necessity to get this work made Dominion-wide and where possible re-establish these people back as good citizens.
It is necessary to recover this economic wastage that has gone on all these years in Canada.
Some of these individuals when rescued would work at some useful employment and thus provide for themselves and their families, and at the same time cease to be a charge on their friends and society. I appeal to the minister to take this matter up and seek to provide a method of checking this human wastage that is going on. Think of youths of sixteen being sent to these institutions. Only the other day I read in the Montreal Gazette of a boy at Fredericton on his sixteenth birthday being sent to one of these penitentiaries in New Brunswick. Is that a proper institution to care for youths of that age? This child may not have had a proper start in life; he may have literally been dragged up without being brought into contact with any beneficent or humanizing influence. Such institutions are not proper places to care for them. Last year I wrote the then Minister of Justice on the subject and enclosed some communications sent to me on the subject. The present minister will find the documents on file in the department because it resulted in a communication being sent to the government of the maritime provinces where they have not a gaol farm or a proper institution, I understand, for caring for those of the age mentioned. If the minister would only send an official down to Atlanta, Georgia, as I suggested, he would learn what excellent work is being carried on there. It

is an education to learn how successfully they are caring for human wrecks and rehabilitating them in society. When that stage is reached they no longer become a charge on the public and are able to care for their families and are restored to society. I sincerely hope the Minister of Justice will take this matter up.


Mr. LOGAN:: The subject which has just been discussed should be very seriously taken up, but this, I think, is scarcely the right time. The treatment of criminals, as we all know, is changing- all over the world, and in my opinion the treatment of criminals throughout Canada deserves consideration by this House. I think it would be well worth while to appoint a special committee to consider the question of penitentiary reform, if you can call it that. Under our present system a man may be committed to penitentiary for some small offence although perhaps he may not have been in his right mind at the time. Nevertheless he is made to suffer as well as his wife and family who are bereft of his companionship and support.


Mr. MACLEAN (York) :: Would not the Criminal Code have to be re-considered too in that connection? That seems to be an important point.


Hance James Logan: Doubtless my hon. friend is right but I throw out the suggestion to the Minister of Justice to appoint a committee of this House to consider the matter of amending the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to the treatment of prisoners in this country and any other questions relating thereto. While on my feet may I be permitted to pay a tribute to one of the penitentiary wardens in Canada who I believe is endeavouring, in so far as he can, to carry out a system of humanitarian treatment of prisoners, and that is the present warden of the Dorchester penitentiary. I think it is only just to him to state that he is doing splendid work in that institution along that line. Our idea should be, not to keep a man in gaol simply to punish him for crime; we should endeavour to restore him to society as a reformed citizen. That is the kind of work that is being successfully carried on to-day by the warden of Dorchester penitentiary, and I hope that his splendid example will be followed by other wardens throughout Canada.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: I brought this question to the attention of the Minister of Justice the other day, when I asked if the Government was prepared to establish

Supply-Justice
prison farms in the interest of young men condemned to the penitentiary. The answer of the Minister of Justice was that the matter will be dealt with by an amendment to the Criminal Code. I think this announcement should settle the question for the present.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Do I understand the Minister of Justice to say that the number of penitentiary inmates is increasing?


Lomer Gouin: Yes.


Thomas George McBride: And that under prohibition?


Thomas Langton Church: I would suggest the desirability of amending the statutes so as to provide that the grand jury when assizes are held should have the power of visiting these institutions in the towns or cities where they may be located. There should be some protection for the inmates of these institutions; it will not do to leave that duty entirely to inspectors. They have this principle in Great Britain where, under the law, a Grand Jury can enter and inspect any one of these institutions. What protection to the inmates does the present system provide? The officials know when the inspector is coming. The Grand Jury is a bulwark of liberty, and should be given the right to enter and inspect these federal institutions in the interest of society.


George Newcombe Gordon: I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that this item is for expenditure upon the penitentiaries; it has no relation to the amendment of the Criminal Code, or questions dealing with the suppression of crime.


Thomas Langton Church: All right, I will bring the matter up again.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I entirely agree with the general sentiments expressed by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) in relation to the matter dealt with by him, but I rise for the purpose of again pointing out the necessity for fiscal reform. These estimates were fully considered by the House last year and the amount was set aside which could be legally used for each and every division of the department. Nevertheless, I notice from the supplementary estimates brought down for the last fiscal year that the department has committed itself to the extent of $150,000 more than Parliament gave it any right to do, and that was done without the passing of a Governor General's warrant. It is quite true we have to look after this amount, but there is a proper way of doing
it, which will still leave the Finance Minister in a position to know where he stands. He is very apt to be in the position-and Parliament is apt to be in the position-of having to look after $150,000 of moneys which have been spent without the 'Governor General's warrant. It is a trouble which I had, which I do not think we ought to have, and which, I think, the present Minister of Finance will agree we ought not to have. I entirely agree that we will have to look after our obligations. I do not know that I can particularly congratulate the new administration upon the tre mendous success they are making of immi gration into the penitentiaries. That is a line of industry which has received an impetus in the last few months.


William Stevens Fielding: Not as late as that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think so. I think we have had an increase of 600 in the population of the penitentiaries- an increase of 30 per cent.


Mr. COOTE:: What percentage of the
inmates of the penitentiaries are foreign born and what percentage native born?


Lomer Gouin: Two-thirds in the West and about one-third in the East for foreign born.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-Capital expenditure, $75,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: I had an idea that we had just finished with capital expenditures on account of Soldiers' Civi1 Re-establishment; that, while we would have a lot of expenses, and properly so, in looking after the work, our capital expenditure was at an end.


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment) :: This amount of $75,000 includes $30,000, which is part of the $235,000 voted last year as a grant to the Calydor Sanitarium. Members of Parliament Who were here last session will remember that, by reason of the recommendation made by the Re-establishment Committee last year, an amount of $35,000 was put in the estimates as a grant to the Calydor Sanitarium. It was supposed to represent one-half of the cost of an extension to it. The amount has been reduced by $5,000, because it is expected the extension will cost $60,000. I understand the authorities of the sanitarium are having the plans prepared and work will be proceeding shortly. An agreement has

Supply-Re- establishment
been arrived at, that the department shall have the privilege of sending there, I think, as many as twenty patients for special observation. The sanitarium is very well equipped for that work. The ba'ance of $45,000 will cover ordinary capital expenditure on a very small scale. As my hon. friend, the ex-Minister of Finance will notice, there is a very large deduction. It is supposed to cover fixtures, equipment, and so on, for the hospital in the sanitarium. We have eighteen different hospitals under our care.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister inform the House what expenditure was made under that head last year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: $161,000 was spent last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Out of a vote of $235,000?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Care of patients and medical examination of pensioners, $4,000,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister inform us how many patients have been looked after as of to-day, and how many were looked after as of the same date a year ago?


Mr BELAND:: On the 31st December, 1920, we had 5,893 in-patients, and 8,599 out-patients On the 31st December, 1921, we had 5,450 in-patients, and 5,785 outpatients. On the 31st December 1921 we had in our hospitals and in hospitals with which we have definite arrangements, a total of 5,930 patients.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Altogether?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Altogether. There is a large number of out-patients, of course, who are not included here, but who come somewhat irregularly into the hospitals to receive treatment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Do I understand the minister correctly as stating that we have now 5,930 patients as compared with something like 14,000 in 1920?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, the last statement covers only in-patients. We have 5,930 in-patients. If you want the whole number of patients that were being attended on the 31st December outside and inside, you will have to add 5,785 to 5,930.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have difficulty about the figures, because the minis-
	,
ter first gives me as of December 31, 1921, 5,450 in-patients and 5,785 out-patients. Then he says that altogether this makes 5,930, as I understood it. That does not jibe with the other figures.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, there are 480 outpatients included in the 5,930. I should put my hon. friend right. He is, in one instance, including the out-patients. There is a very small difference in the number of patients in hospital between the 31st December, 1921, and the same day of the previous year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 440, is it not?


Henri Sévérin Béland: About 440.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the actual expenditure last year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Last year, to April 20, $3,885,082.41.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is against the appropriation of $5,250,000.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is not complete, I am informed, because the last accounts have not been received from the different hospitals.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That brings the accounts down to what date?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The accounts that were in on the 20th of April.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is pretty late.


Mr. CALDWELL:: Is it not a fact that, within the last year, a change has been made in the method of examining pensioners? Has the department not done away with certain district officers and substituted a board for the examination of pensioners?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am informed that there is no change in this regard.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Has there not been a change within the last two years?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend is quite right. Travelling boards were established about two years ago.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the minister find that that cuts down the expense of this branch of the service; that it is giving as good satisfaction and that it is as efficient as the former method?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It provides for an examination by a board instead of by an individual doctor. It is considered that a little economy is effected thereby.

Supply-Re-establishment


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Has the minister
found any criticism regarding the services rendered by the travelling board1?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I must admit that a certain number of complaints have come into my office, but not so very many.


Robert King Anderson: Is it the policy of
the department to pay those who have less than 14 >per cent disability a lump sum, and to tell them that their pension will be discontinued?


Henri Sévérin Béland: A pensioner, who has a disability ranging between 5 and 14 per cent, both inclusive, is at liberty to commute his pension for a lump sum which, of course, is determined by the Board of Pension Commissioners and is rated according to the degree of disability. A pensioner, with a disability above 14 per cent, has no option.


Robert King Anderson: And with a disability below 5 per cent he has no option?


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend is quite right. A man with a disability below 5 per cent has no option; his case is settled by payment of an amount, which is called a gratuity, depending upon the extent of disability.


Robert King Anderson: Has that change been made in the last year or the last few months?


Henri Sévérin Béland: If my memory serves me aright, the commutation provision was adopted by this House in 1920, the session before last, upon the recommendation of the committee.


Robert King Anderson: The point I wish to make is that certain members of the Expeditionary Force, who are receiving pensions and who are rated at 5 per cent disability, received notices that they could have the privilege of having their pensions paid monthly or of taking so much as commutation. Those who took their pension monthly and who received it in that way for a year or more, were finally told that they would be given a certain commuted amount and discharged from the service.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is only in case of disability below 5 per cent, and, as my hon. friend is aware, it is in accordance with the provisions of the Pension Act.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In case a man, who has under 14 per cent disability, commutes his pension and his disability subsequently becomes greater, is he not entitled to go
back for further examination and entitled to a pension for that increase of disability?


Henri Sévérin Béland: If his condition changes, he is entitled to re-examination, and then he may receive treatment or his pension may be increased, if that is deemed advisable by the board.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But if his condition has not changed, he is not entitled to hospital treatment?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, he is always entitled to treatment, as long, of course, as the disability or the illness from which he suffers can be traced to his service.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Notwithstanding the fact that he had commuted his pension and had received the lump sum?
Mr. BELAND Notwithstanding that.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The reason I asked the question was this: Certain cases were brought to my attention where a man had been refused medical treatment in a hospital because of his having received final payment by way of commutation of his pension, and his disability had not increased.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That must evidently be because the illness, of which he complained and for which he claimed treatment, was not recognized as being due to service.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That might be possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vocational expense, $85,000.
Arthur Meighen: What amount was spent last year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Last year, only $154,900 was spent for vocational training.


Murray MacLaren: How many men underwent vocational training last year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: On February 29th, 1920, the department had on strength for training purposes 17,222 disabled and 8,800 minors, or a total of 26,022. In the previous year there were only 16,000 disabled. On the 31st of December, 1920, there were 4,714 and on the 31st of December, 1921, only 605 disabled men and 29 minors, a total of 634. My hon. friend will notice that there is a big difference between 4,714 and 634.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: When did the time expire at which applications could be made for vocational training?
Daylight Saving


Henri Sévérin Béland: On the 1st of February, 1920, unless the men are still on the strength.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: As the time has expired for applications for training what will the 885,000 be used for?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The amount is to complete the training of men on the strength, but my hon. friend must remember that all men now receiving treatment are always admitted, regardless of the date of expiry previously set, if they wish to receive training.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE*-DAYLIGHT SAVING
William Stevens Fielding: Before moving the adjournment of the House, I desire to call attention to the fact that daylight saving comes into effect in Ottawa on Sunday. It was understood some time ago, in answer to a question, that while it was not proposed to make any general law on the subject, the policy of the Government was to adapt itself to the local decision in the matter of daylight saving. That being the case, I trust it is now generally understood that on Monday, when we meet again, we shall meet under the local municipal law. In other words, while there is nothing legal on the subject, we will observe daylight saving because it is the rule of the municipality.


Arthur Meighen: I think the Government is acting wisely in following the example of the late government in this regard, as in all others, and I commend them. I cannot help observing that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was not at all influenced by the resolution of the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Kay), and so far from restraining municipal regulations we are, on the contrary, complying with them.


William Stevens Fielding: There have been cases in which the attitude of the late government was excellent, and they are so exceedingly rare that it is perhaps well that we should mention them. I move that the House do now adjourn.


Arthur Meighen: The minister did well to move the adjournment and so shut off any comment I might make. We will observe on this side with interest, and the country will observe with pity and remorse,
any departure of the present Government from the precedent of the late administration.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 6 p.m.
Monday, May 1, 1922
i