ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the House that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, June 11, 1925.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. F. A. Anglin, acting as the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber at 5.45 p.m. on Friday the 12th inst., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
James F. Crowdy,
Deputy of the
Governor General's Secretary.

Ocean Shipping Rates

Eighth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.-Mr. McGiverin.



VOTE 298, UNFORESEEN EXPENSES

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during consideration of the supply for the Department of Finance, my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) desired information as to the expenditure under vote 298. I find that a statement of these expenditures was tabled at the beginning of the session, the total then shown being $57,323.45. Since that time there have been the following additional expenses on account of this vote:
Expenses in connection with the visit of the
treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia
and party	$1,711 67
Clarkson Gordon and Dil worth, for disbursements and services rendered in connection with the preparation of the report on the affairs
of the Home Bank of Canada	 1,238 00
Herbert Thompson, to cover loss of stolen
boat and damages to a canoe	 10 00
Compensation for injury sustained at Elmira,
Ont., post office	 100 00
Expenditure in connection with entertaining the Japanese training squadron on their visit to Victoria and Vancouver, February, 1925.	831 52
I will send this statement over to my right hon. friend for perusal and return to me, it being my copy.



OCEAN SHIPPING RATES


Mr. WILLI AN DUFF (Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) I beg leave to present the sixth report of the special committee appointed to consider the resolution giving the government of Canada control over certain ocean rates.
The report is as follows:
The special committee to whom was referred the resolution of the House of Commons of date March 20, 1925, beg leave to present the following as their sixth and final report.
Your committee have held forty-six meetings, have heard thirty-six witnesses and have had produced before them a large number of documents of which one hundred and two were filed as exhibits.
Mr. Gordon W. Scott, C.A., has examined and reported upon the figures supplied him by the steamship companies and has also made certain test examinations of the books of the Canadian Pacific Railway steamships. The committee have had before them Mr. H. J. Symington, Iv.C., while the conference lines were represented by Messrs. A. W. Atwater, K.C., G. H. Montgomery, K.C., E. P. Flintoft, and C. Russell McKenzie; while Mr. H. H. Donald appeared on behalf of Sir William Petersen.
Without attempting to fully review the evidence which is produced herewith, it may be noted that the findings of the special committee on Agricultural conditions, which sat during the session of 1923, to the effect that a conference or combine of steamships trading in the north Atlantic existed, and that such conference or combine fixed rates, has been amply borne out in the course of the inquiry held by your committee.
Indeed, on the present occasion the steamship companies admitted the existence of such a rate-fixing conference, coupling their admission with the contention that the conference system was of public advantage, and that the rates charged under it were fair and reasonable to the shipper; indeed, contending that they were at this time too low to give an adequate return to the steamship owners.
Be that as it may, the following facts should be noted:-
Although fairness demands that it be admitted that operating costs of all businesses have greatly increased over pre-war levels, yet the increases which have been brought before us in the transportation costs of certain commodities show certain of these altogether out of line. Thus, although wheat and flour, constituting a preponderating proportion of the exports from Canadian ports, are now carried at rates closely approximating those which prevailed eleven or twelve years ago, although certain other rates show increases of 25 per cent, of 53 per cent, of 76 per cent, and others approximately 100 per cent, others again present increases which are startling. Thus, evaporated apples in boxes have increased 150 per cent; binders, cultivators, mowers, reapers, threshing machines, 249 per cent; hardware, 262 per cent; organs, 400 per cent; while packed meats, bacons, hams, etc., show an increase of 119 per cent; butter in ordinary storage of 170 per cent; butter in refrigerators, 181 per cent; eggs in ordinary storage, 214 per cent. The real reason for such extraordinary differences between the rates charged for grain and flour and those charged for other products above mentioned appears to lie in the fact that tramp competition is an important factor in the fixation of rates by the conference in regard to such products as grain and flour, while in respect to package freight, which as a rule cannot be shipped in entire cargoes, the liners in the conference enjoy a quasi-monopoly. The main object of this quasi-monopoly is to raise the level, or prevent the fall, of rates by united and uniform action, as admitted by the conference lines themselves.
The large shipper of grain or flour may and does employ tramp steamers to take entire ship loads of these commodities from north Atlantic ports to Europe or elsewhere. The shipper, be he large or small, of leather, butter, packed meats or manufactured articles, rarely has the relief which the tramp affords open to him, and therefore must pay the rates exacted by the conference lines, who, it is only fair to state, in return give to the exporter regularity of sailings and dispatch such as the tramp does not afford.
\ our committee spent a considerable part of their time in the examination of the question as to whether the rates charged by the conference lines were higher than they should be, as well as into the contention of the steamship companies that the rates at present in force and obtaining for the past two years, did not give them an adequate return on their investment. The auditor of your committee, upon figures supplied him by the steamship companies, presented a statement showing that in the year 1923 the cargo steamers engaged in the North Atlantic trade, before charging layup expenses and depreciation, made a loss of $929,963; while their passenger-cargo steamers in the same year, before charging lay-up expenses and depreciation, showed an operating credit balance of almost five and one half millions dollars; while during the next year the operating credit balance on the cargo steamers, before charging lay-up . expenses and depreciation, was $168,781; while in respect to the passenger-cargo
Ocean Shipping Rates

steamers for that year such balance, before charging lay-up expenses and depreciation, was $2,398,524. Upon the figures submitted, and taking the two years' operations together, the earnings realized would not be sufficient to pay an adequate percentage on the capital invested, together with proper allowances for depreciation. The differences of operating expenses brought out by Mr. Scott in his report (Exhibit No. 87, beg:nn:ng at page 897 of the printed evidence) were as follows:- Port charges varied from the maximum of 48.98 per cent to a minimum of 33.6 per cent of the total earnings; fuel varied from 28.7 per cent to 8.6 per cent; insurance varied from 10 per cent to 2.5 per cent; repairs varied from 9.2 per cent to 2.7 per cent; management, commission and brokerage, general expenses, etc., varied from 16.9 per cent to 6.8 per cent. These differences may be due in part to different modes of book-keeping pursued by the various conference lines, but may also be due to the presence in the trade of ships differing so widely in cost of operation as to suggest the probability that certain of the ships either through age or otherwise may be unfitted for the trade.
Without questioning in any way the good faith of the lines, it must be remembered that Mr. Scott in arriving at his figures had to depend, to the extent of about 95 per cent, upon figures submitted to him by the lines, without an opportunity of verification, _ except in respect to the Canadian Pacific steamships in connection with which certain test examinations were made which were found satisfactory. It is of interest to the government and people of Canada to know exactly why such variation should exist in the operating expenses of the various lines serving Canadian ports and further investigation is desirable, if not imperative along these lines.
In the course of the examination of Captain Hocken, Master of the ss. Rio Dorado, one of Sir William Petersen's corrugated ships, and in the evidence of Sir William Petersen himself, strong claims were made as to the efficiency and economy of operation of such ships. It is submitted, however, that one voyage, or rather the result of part of a voyage from Hull to Montreal and thence to Hamburg, cannot be taken as sufficient evidence on which to base a definite conclusion as to the superiority of Sir William Petersen's corrugated ships over vessels of similar size but of usual construction. Apparently expert opinion has as yet not been thoroughly satisfied as to the advantages offered by this mode of construction.
It would appear, therefore, wise to obtain further information as to the earnings of the conference lines and their cost of operation, as well as similar data concerning Sir William Petersen's ships before attempting to pass judgment upon the contract referred to this committee. It would therefore appear advisable that a further investigation be made into the situation in order that there may be presented to the government of Canada a true and exact representation of the situation as regards the earnings and operating expenses of the north Atlantic shipping trade, and that such further investigation should be made as may be necessary to verify the correctness of the claims made on behalf of Sir William Petersen's ships, and for this purpose that, their earnings and operating expenses be accurately determined.
Meanwhile your committee feel that the situation demands that something should be done for the relief of shippers who find their trade seriously hampered through unreasonable ocean freight rates. To such persons it is no consolation for them to learn that the conference lines state that they are not making money and that the rates charged by them are said to be due to the desire of the steamship companies to recoup themselves for losses incurred in the carriage of other products below economical rates. High freight rates may be due to entirely different causes such as the expense of operating ships unfitted by age or conversion or otherwise for the trade, as has

already been suggested. The fact that the west bound traffic offers cargoes on the whole of less than 25 per cent has, of course, a tendency to raise east bound rates.
Various commissions and committees who have looked into this subject have expressed themselves as being alive to the danger to the public interest which arises through an uncontrolled monopoly.
If the conference system is to be tolerated-and effective action to restore open competition appears only possible by the united action of all the maritime powers of the world-some means of control must be sought.
The question of how such control is to be secured is not easy of solution. The placing of unduly onerous burdens upon ships trading to Canada might drive them to other ports. The legal power of Canada to legislate in respect to ships other than of Canadian registry is at best doubtful. It is to be remembered, however, that the foreign trade of Canada is of large actual, and of very great relative importance. Few nations have greater interest than ourselves in the obtaining of fair and reasonable rates for ocean carriage of our products to the markets of the world. The growth of our country in no small measure depends on our success in this direction and few other than ourselves are more interested in this growth than the steamship companies who now trade to our Canadian ports.
Your committee, therefore, in view of the foregoing and before pronouncing themselves either favourably or unfavourably on the contract would sum up their recommendations as follows:-
I.	That the examinations into the books of the conference lines by Mr. Gorden W. Scott, C.A., be continued in Britain and elsewhere in order to determine whether the rates now charg d are excessive, to explain discrepancies in operating costs, to verify the figures submitted and in short to prepare an accurate representation of the north Atlantic shipping situation, the conference lines having declared their willingness to submit to such examination.
II.	That he also be instructed to make like examinations into the books kept by or in connection with the ships of Sir William Petersen who has declared a like willingness, and that he should report his conclusions to the government on both phases of his enquiry.
III.	That Sir William Peterson should be given an opportunity, if he so desires, of substantiating the claims made by him in respect to his ships.
IV.	That to this end tests should be made of the actual performance of these ships in the north Atlantic Canadian trade under careful and expert supervision both of the earnings, operating costs, managerial expenses and performance at sea and in port of such ships.
V.	Inasmuch as it is in the public interest that these tests should be made, and that they should be effective and fair to all parties, Sir William Petersen should be given the opportunity to demonstrate the economies of his ships under conditions which will ensure freedom of competition in the obtaining of cargo.
VI.	That all members of the north Atlantic or other conferences trading to Canadian ports be required to file with the Board of Railway Commissioners all conference agreements, freight rate schedules, and such other information as may be desired, and that the board be constituted a tribunal for the hearing of complaints, and the recommendation of maximum rates.
It is to be noted that publicity is in itself a
strong remedial instrument for the correction of in-

Further Legislation
justice and unfairness. Great transportation companies, strenuously competing in respect to service for Canadian overseas trade, cannot afford to flout Canadian public opinon. It cannot be doubted that a great institution almost national in character, such as the Canadian Pacific Railway, should and it is believed would loyally comply with the recommendations of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Such action, coupled with similar action by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine would almost inevitably force the other lines trading to Canadian ports also to comply, and thus a reasonable effective measure of control might be looked for with some considerable degree of confidence.
VII.	In order to ensure harmony in the control of shipping throughout the British Empire and that Canadian autonomy in all matters pertaining to shipping within the territorial waters of Canada be preserved beyond perad venture, your committee beg to recommend that the alleged conflict between the Merchants Shipping Act and the British North America Act shall be the subject of conference between the Canadian Government and the British Government at an early date.
VIII.	It appeared in the course of your committee's investigation that a ship-owner desiring to obtain British registry for his ship need only present a Lloyd's certificate in order to establish the seaworthiness of his vessel, but that if he desires to obtain Canadian registry the ships must undergo an examination or survey by the Canadian government as well as that conducted by Lloyd's or some similar institution. Thus a very substantial and altogether unnecessary expense is placed upon the ship-owner desiring to obtain Canadian registry for his vessel and your committtee recommend that the Canadian regulations should be amended to remove this disadvantage.
IX.	It would also appear that co-operative action among shippers to retain space would effect a substantial reduction in freight rates. This is exemplified in respect to cold storage for butter. The conference lines who charge almost as much to carry butter from Montreal to Liverpool as they do from New Zealand to Liverpool complain that their refrigerator space is made full use of for only a comparatively short part of the season, and that were they assured of adequate demands for their space, they could substantially cut the rate. It would appear that co-operation between shippers who could take firm a large portion of the refrigerated space offered, would obviate the difficulty in which the lines find themselves, and should greatly inure to the benefit of both parties. This solution would appear to be open to the produce exporters of this country, were the necessary faith in each other essential to successful co-operation present.
X.	Your committee further recommend that the order of reference, reports, proceedings and the evidence given before the committee, together with a suitable index to be prepared by the clerk of the committee, be printed as an appendix to the Journals of the House of the present session and that 750 copies in the English language and 250 copies in the French language be printed in blue book form for distribution.
Your committee submit herewith for the information of the House a copy of their proceedings, the evidence given before the committee and also certain -documents filed with the committee.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Andrew R. McMaster, Chairman.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I have listened carefully to the report but it does not seem complete; the name of Mr. Preston is not mentioned.
PEIGAiN INDIAN BAND


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Maoleod):: I desire to present a petition signed by Philip Big Swan and eighty other members of the Peigan Indian Band, praying for the cancellation of a certain lease covering a large part of the Peigan reserve granted to Hon. A. J. McLean against the vote of the Band.



PRIVATE BILL


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I move, seconded by the hon, member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Hanson), that in accordance with the recommendation contained in the eighth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills the additional charge made on Bill No. 164, for the relief of Walter Thomas Pratchett, be refunded.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of
Finance): In the interests of the Department ol Finance I must again object to this motion as I did some weeks ago to similar resolutions. It seems to me that we should determine sooner or later to what extent we are to go in refunding these charges to people who come before parliament asking for legislation and, when they are not successful, expect the country to reimburse them.
Hon, H. B. MoGIVERIN (Ottawa): These charges are not ordinary fees. A fine is levied even when the petition is a day late in being presented, and the charges are in the nature of fines. The committee felt in two or three oases that they were fully justified in returning the charges to the applicants, and while I do not recall the exact circumstances in relation to this particular case I know that the reasons were sufficient to warrant the recommendation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after the 16th June instant, until the end of the present session, the House shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning of each sitting day, and that in addition to the unsual intermission at six o'clock p.m. there shall be also an intermission every day from one to three o'clock p.m.


Arthur Meighen: (Leader of the Opposition): This is the usual motion
Governor General

and there is no special objection to it, although I really do not see that it is very necessary this year. However, it should not be passed until all government legislation is down, which is not the case. I suggest that the motion stand awaiting the bringing down of all further legislation. If everything is already down I shall have no objection to the motion taking effect on Tuesday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no objection to having it stand. As I intimated yesterday, all legislation is now down, as far as I am aware, with 'the exception of supplementary estimates and one or two very minor bills.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister is
forgetting about that rural credits matter that is on the conscience of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I am not forgetting it; I spoke of it yesterday. I said, with the exception of the measures I referred to yesterday.


Arthur Meighen: I think the Prime Minister stated there were one or two minor matters to be dealt with.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should say there is a small amendment that the Minister of Customs and Excise has-I think to give him power to make regulations under the Smuggling Treaty-and also an amendment to the Customs Act to give him some power in connection with the issuing of tobacco stemming licenses.


Arthur Meighen: And the matter of rural credits?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: We need to see the rural credits legislation brought down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should not
like to close the door absolutely to some small amendments that may be needed to be introduced and discussed between now and the end of the session; but I think I can safely say that there will be nothing that will be controversial in any sense.


Hewitt Bostock: Shall the motion carry?


Arthur Meighen: The motion stands in
the meantime.


Hewitt Bostock: Motion stands.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 186, from the Senate, for the relief of Frederick Ethelbert Shibley.-Mr. German.
[Mr. Meighen.J
Bill No. 187, from the Senate, respecting The Canadian Pacific Railway Company.- Mr. Hopkins.
Bill No. 188, from the Senate, for the relief of Alfred Percival Selby.-Mr. Clifford.
Bill No. 189, from the Senate, for the relief of Charles Thomas Bolton.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 190, from the Senate, for the relief of Ada Durward.-Mr. Clifford.
Bill No. 191, from the Senate, foT the relief of Edward James Hogan.-Mr. Hanna.
Bill No. 192, from the 'Senate, for the relief of Roger Alexander McGill.

Mr. Bowen.
Bill No. 193, from the Senate, for the relief of John Perron.

Mr. McKay.
Bill No. 194, from the Senate, for the relief of William Albert Everingham.-Mr. Bowen.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, it is now close to the end of this session, and before we meet again the term of the duties of the present Governor General will be close to expiration. There has been a very general feeling on the part of the people of Canada that it would meet with almost universal approbation if this term could, with the approval of His Excellency, be extended. I bring the matter to the attention of the government, and I ask if they are in a position to make any statement to the House on the subject, assuring them that any statement of a favourable nature will be Very welcome on this side of the House-I believe on all sides -and by the country in general.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some little time ago I
intimated to His Excellency the Governor General, in much the same terms as the right hon. leader of the opposition has just used, that I was quite sure that irrespective of political affiliations the people of Canada would greatly welcome an announcement of the extension, and preferably the renewal of His Excellency's term, as Governor General of Canada. His Excellency has considered the matter very carefully, but I regret to say has intimated to me that he feels he should not consider having his term extended. In speaking with His Excellency, I mentioned of course, that if he could see his way -to remain longer in Canada, the government would like to present to the British government the intimation that it would be most welcome to the people of Canada to have His Excellency's

Inquiry for Returns
term renewed. Unhappily for reasons which His Excellency regards as paramount, he feels that nothing short of quite exceptional public need should permit him to consider remaining beyond the term for which he has been appointed, which term, I think, expires in August of next year. Perhaps I should say to the House that in expressing his regret at not finding it possible to consider remaining longer in Canada, His Excellency wished me to convey to the members of the government, as I assume he would also wish me to convey to the members of this House, how deeply touched both he and Her Excellency have been by this expression of the favour and good-will of the people of Canada.



MINERS AND STEEL WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: Could the
Minister of Labour give us any additional information which he has secured since yesterday concerning the labour disturbance in Cape Breton?	.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we have no further
definite information other than 'hon. gentlemen would read in the morning papers and as stated to the House yesterday.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if he knows whether troops have been sent to the mining area, and whether they have been sent in order to protect the men against the police of the company, or for what purpose they have been sent?


James Murdock: Our understanding is that the troops were asked for by proper authority in the persons, I understand, of justices of the peace .or judges in Cape Breton, applications being made to -the Attorney General of Nova Scotia who requisitioned troops from the garrison at Halifax, and these troops left last evening for the scene of the riots. I do not know that I could give my hon. friend any further information except to assume that troops were requisitioned for the purpose of maintaining peace, order and good government in the mining area. That is the presumed purpose of the requisitioning of troops.


Mr. SPENCER:: Will the Minister of
Labour tell us who will be called upon to pay the expense of the troops being sent to Cape Breton.


James Murdock: My hon. friend having been in the House during the last two or three sessions will recall the change in the
law which requires that the province shall, in the case referred to, be required to pay the expense of the troops.


Arthur Meighen: Am I to understand from the minister that the troops of Canada have actually gone to Cape Breton without the government being so much as notified?


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Minister of National Defence):: For the information of
my hon. friend what has occurred has been that the attorney general requisitioned the district officer commanding in the province of Nova Scotia for the troops under the act which we passed last session. The district officer has communicated with the adjutant-general and has advised him to the effect that he was acting under the orders of the attorney general.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. A. B. OOPP (Secretary of State):: In reference to the remarks of my right hon. friend the leadter of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) on the orders of the day yesterday in regard to the delay in bringing down certain returns I have drawn the attention of the officials of the department in charge of this work to his remarks and I am informed (hat a large number of the returns asked for will be very voluminous and will necessitate a great deal of work. I have asked the different departments to expedite this work as rapidly as possible and I hope before the end of the session they will all be brought down. I would remind my hon. friend that four of the returns he mentioned yes.erday as not having been brought down have already been laid on the table.


Arthur Meighen: What ones?


Arthur Bliss Copp: The following returns were
tabled in the House:
Reference No. 99, Mr. McQuarrie, April 27, 1925, Re: Number of civil servants who are eligible to come under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act 1924. Presented in House of Commons May 29, 1925.
Reference No. 103, Mr. Doucet, April 27, 1925, Re: A copy of all correspondence in connection with the appointment of the new postmaster at St. Ignace, electoral district of Kent, New Brunswick. Presented in House of Commons, May 27, 1925.
Reference No. 117, Mr. Stevens. May 11, 1925, Re: Statement made out by Messrs Wilson and Wilson in October 1924 as auditors fqr Vancouver Harbour Commissions, etc. Presented in House of Commons June 11. 1925.
Reference No.120 Mr. B'ack (Halifax) May 18. 1925, Re: How much money has been expended by the National or Quebec Battlefields Commission in monuments and historic sites in Quebec. Presented in House of Commons May 28, 1925.	.
Fruit Act



FRUIT ACT AMENDMENT BILL


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 117 to amend the Fruit Act.
He said: The provision the Senate has inserted is simply following the present practice, and although my attention was called to the fact that the official title "Horticultural Council of Canada" is not quite correct, I think it will be all right. I have no objection to accepting the amendment.
Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: I should like to repeat what I said yesterday and to state the reason why I objected to the amendment being made. It seems to me a most extraordinary thing that we should lbe consenting to an amendment in this House which actually refers to an association by a wrong title. It might result in one of two things; either the authorities concerned might ignore the body called The Horticultural Council of Canada because it does not exist or else they might consult that body, describing it by its correct name, and afterwards there might be trouble in connection with it. I suggest that the amendment 'be not concurred in. My second reason is that it is usual and the minister has in the past consulted both the Fruit Growers' Association and the Canadian Horticultural Council before bringing in such a recommendation. I do not therefore see any necessity for the minister to be formally insti'ucted to again consult that body. It might mean that it would be necessary to call into session that particular body because it really only meets once a year. It is necessary that quick action should be taken, and quick action will not be obtained if this amendment is adopted.


Arthur Meighen: Although I do not claim
to be as familiar with the details of these various organizations, as the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), it strikes me as a very peculiar amendment, especially coming from the upper house. That body is distinguished for the care which it takes from a legal aspect, especially in the revision of legislation. But to insert a provision such as this in a statute seems to me most extraordinary. It says, "the minister after consultation with the Horticultural Council of Canada"-something that has not the slightest legal effect. It is especially absurd if t'he hon. member for Yale is correct in the statement that there is no
[Mr. Copp.l
Horticultural Council of Canada. I think it must have slid through the Senate rather loosely, and I suggest to the minister that he should take it up again. Why should he insert into legislation the provision that the minister should consult the Horticultural Council of Canada? It would have had some meaning if it had said "with the approval of the Horticultural Council of Canada", but as it stands it is absurd. I am sure the House will agree with me in that.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: All the six bills
that went through this House dealing with agriculture have been adopted by the Senate with this one simple amendment, and it would look a little bit pemickity on my part if I began to split hairs as to the name of the body. If we call them the Horticultural Council of Canada, they will surely come. I would not like to suggest an amendment to this amendment. Everybody knows what they are. We always consult them. The Senate has inserted in this bill an amendment which asks that we shall do what we always do. They could not ask for less if they asked anything at all, and I am ready to comply with a reasonable request of that kind, especially when I remember the bills which have been passed in this House and have been slaughtered entirely in the Senate. I feel grateful that this small amendment has been made, but now to begin to cheesepare and to say that this is not exactly the technical name, I think would not serve any useful purpose. If anybody will suggest the right name I will not object to the change. But I approve and concur in the amendment made by the Senate. If anybody thinks they will not come for this name, let them come for the other name. I have not the official name with me. Everybody in Canada will know what the Horticultural Council of Canada is. I think the official name is "Canadian Horticultural Council". Surely we are not in a hurry to finish the session when we can quibble on such differences as this.


Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton):: I am surprised that the minister
is ready to accept this amendment, because I fear it is going to get him into trouble. For instance, when it comes to amending the Root and Vegetable Act I shall insist on a consultation with the New Brunswick Potato Growers' Association before any changes are made-that is, proceeding on the principle which the minister adopts in this amendment. And when it comes to the grading of eggs and any amendments relating thereto, the egg circles of Prince Edward Island would

Fruit Act
have to be consulted before anything was done. I think it is a ridiculous and impracticable amendment.


William Richard Motherwell: It is practised
now.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It may be practised.
But the minister brought down this bill to get authority to make special grades where no gradles existed. It will be an emergency measure, and that is why we passed the bill. When the crop is harvested, if there are any unusual circumstances in connection with it the minister will be able to establish grades that do not now exist under the law. Now, while there is a Canadian Horticultural Council, there is no Horticultural Council of Canada. The name is wrong, but I do not think that is a very material matter. But I believe this association meets only once a year and that the members of it are scattered all over Canada. How would the minister proceed to consult this organization if he needed something done in a hurry? Would the government pay the expenses of calling the members of the council from various sections of Canada to meet at Ottawa in order that he might consult them? Or will he wait until the emergency has passed and the necessity of getting the grades has passed, in order that he may consult them at their regular meeting? If the amendment is not accepted the Senate will surely reconsider their request in this matter. I do not want to hold the bill up, I want to see it go through; but I want it to go through in such a way that the minister will be able to take some action on it. To my mind he might better withdraw the whole thing than submit to this amendment, because it will prevent his doing anything in a case of emergency.


William Richard Motherwell: I assure my hon.
friend that he will have no trouble in the matter at all.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is defeating rather than attaining his object. We had understood that there was real necessity for this legislation, namely, in order that action might be taken definitely and quickly when occasion required. I do not personally know anything about the constitution of this society, but if, as the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) has said, this society is represented in 269
different provinces from coast to coast, I do not see how any quick action can be taken.


William Richard Motherwell: The secretary lives in Ottawa.
. Sir HENRY DRAYTON: The secretary is not the association. While the secretary may have been consulted by the minister in the past, that is merely a matter of common sense, not a matter of legal requirement. If this amendment is accepted the minister's hands are tied until he calls that meeting.


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, the act
says so.


William Richard Motherwell: I am perfectly satisfied with it the way it is.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I will address
myself then, to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), I think he will agree that according to this amendment, before there is any action the minister must have a consultation or conference with the Horticultural Council of Canada-I do not think there is any-
4 p.m. thing very much in the matter of the name. Suppose an emergency arises and there is real necessity for the legislation; if the minister acts without such conference or consultation with the Canadian Horticultural Council, his action is illegal and void. The secretary is merely the servant of the organization. If the wording was, "after consultation with the secretary," then something could be done at once and without expense, but as it is now the situation is as I have stated it.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I admit that this is
a most extraordinary amendment, for the reasons suggested not only by the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) but also by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) when he pointed out that consultation does not mean approval. It seems almost absurd. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) was of the opinion that he could get along with the amendment as it is, but I would rather suggest that some time be devoted to a consideration of the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On other occasions conferences have been held between the two Houses on matters of this kind and an amicable arrangement has been arrived at. I should think that instead of debating the proposed amendment further we might ask for



Criminal Code
a conference with the other House, and I am sure that a satisfactory arrangement can be made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Carried.
Mr. Carroll moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 9 consideration in committee of Bill No. 147 to amend the criminal code-Hon. Mr. Lapointe-Mr. Gordon in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: Sections one, two,
three and four have been carried. The section to be considered is number five.
On section 5-Agricultural fairs granted partial exemption from penalty clauses.


William Charles Good: Has not this clause been objected to rather strongly by a deputation that interviewed the government some months ago?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, there have been
objections to the clause. On the other hand, it has been very strongly urged by the principal agricultural fairs, more particularly those which are subsidized by the Department of Agriculture, and that department has recommended the clause. As my hon. friend will see, the specially objectionable games are excluded.


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister explain what those games are?


Ernest Lapointe: I think my ignorance
of the punch board or coin table game is just as complete as that of my right hon. friend.


Mr. JACOBS:: What is a shell game?


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend
the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) since he has joined the United Church of Canada may be better qualified than I a.m to explain the nature of these games.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, I
am not very familiar with these objectionable games myself, but I think the essential element in all of them is that by sleight of hand on the part of the operator the innocent victim is pretty badly stung. Religious and charitable organizations are permitted however to raise money by means of wheels of fortune, this being a favourite method of retailing merchandise, the profit realized being about 33^ per cent, or about the same as that realized by any retail concern. This used to be the regular method adopted by our ex-

hibitions for raising money, but they were deprived of it by the amendment which went through the House three sessions ago without comment. Evidently the House did not know what was involved in the change, and I am quite sure the Minister of Justice did not.


Arthur Meighen: Did the Minister of Agriculture?


William Richard Motherwell: I did not until I
went back home after prorogation and the fair managers protested to me thunderously. They said, "'Why didn't you let us know this change was going to be made?" I had to admit that I did not know myself.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will the minister state
*who sprung this on him two years ago?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know. It
may have been a hot day; anyway the section -went through without the slightest discussion. I remember that a't the time the Minister of Justice had requests for a great many reforms, and apparently he could not grant the majority of them, but this seemed to him a somewhat innocent looking one, and, as I say, it went through the House without comment. Regardless of the ethics of raising money this way, I ask the committee if it was fair to treat our agricultural exhibitions in this manner. I have no compunction whatever in asking that this section be agreed to.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will the minister please explain just what methods of gambling will be allowed on agricultural exhibition grounds if this amendment goes through?


William Richard Motherwell: The retailing of
merchandise by means of wheels of fortune.


Samuel William Jacobs: This looks to me like an
attempt to legalize crime in the interests of agricultural associations. Is this another concession which the government is making to our friends the farmers?


William Richard Motherwell: It is the regular
practice in my hon. friend's own province.


Samuel William Jacobs: That does not make it any better.


Mr. HANSON:: Mr. Chairman, I have
received representations from gentlemen associated with agricultural exhibitions in New Brunswick pointing out the necessity of this legislation if they are to finance their fairs. It is unfortunate, I think, that they have to have midways and wheels of fortune, but I cannot see that retailing merchandise by means of wheels of fortune is such a shocking

Criminal Code
form of gambling, as suggested by certain people, that it should be put under the ban. I am going to support this section, 'because without this concession I think one of the main attractions of the exhibitions we have in our provincial towns will be taken away. The midway attracts as many people as the agricultural exhibition itself. I do not agree with the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) that this form of gambling is simply legalized crime. My view is that, on the contrary, it is a perfectly proper method of retailing merchandise. At least, that is the excuse of the Minister of Agriculture, and I am going to rest my conscience on that excuse.


William Charles Good: Mr. Chairman, when this
change was made in the law three years ago, I think I understood the Minister of Agriculture to say that there must have been some reason for introducing the measure.


William Richard Motherwell: I knew nothing
about it.


William Charles Good: I know that in the province
of Ontario the midway featm-e of fairs has been under consideration for many years, and the allegation so frequently made that no fair could finance itself without a midway has been completely disproven. There must be at Least a hundred and fifty fall fairs in Ontario that are being carried on very successfully without any midway features at all. I have heard it contended that the midway damages the fairs. I should like to know from the minister what fairs have requested this change.


Ernest Lapointe: I can only say that my office was besieged with people when that delegation came last year, claiming to represent all important agricultural fairs from British Columbia to Nova Scotia, and they represented that this provision was necessary to the success of their undertaking.


William Charles Good: Could the Minister of Agriculture give us any information on that point?


William Richard Motherwell: The representations were made largely by those interested in what are known as the "A" and "B'' fairs, numbering between forty and fifty and helld all over Canada. These are the most difficult fairs to finance. They find their revenues cut into by $5,000 or $10,000, some of .them more, and the practical question is how to replace that money. Is .my hon. friend going to help out these fairs by making a contribution from his own pocket? Three years ago we increased the grants ito these fairs by $1,250, but even 269i
that did not compensate them for the Loss. These exhibitions are undoubtedly of great educational value from the point of view of agriculture. If my hon. friend can suggest any better solution of the difficulty, we shall be giad to hear it.


William Charles Good: I am not at present taking a definite stand against this legislation; I am seeking information. I have heard-I do not know how correct the information is-that the fairs asking for this legislation are very few in comparison with the total number of fair associations in Canada, and that they are almost entirely those of the large cities. Is it possible that these fairs are, after all, not agricultural fairs primarily-perhaps only secondarily? If the minister takes the position that these fairs must be given the right to finance themselves in this way in order to inveigle people in to see the fine stock- which is, after all, the side issue, the madway hrino* the main fa'r-^ ^ not. hp-liove that is wise policy. It was advocated years ago in Ontario with respect to the smaller fairs, and I think the argument was shown to be a fallacious one. However,-if the minister states that there is real difficulty I do not know that I should definitely object to trying the legislation out, although I have grave doubts as to the outcome. Representations were made to me not long ago by the president of the United Farmers of Ontario against this legislation. I do not know whether the organization itself has taken any definite stand in the matter, but I understand that the Social Service Council of Canada has taken a definite stand against the amendment. I rose rather to -seek detailed information in order that we might see what was the proper thing to do. I am doubtful of the propriety of passing this legislation.	.	[DOT]
Mr. MicTAGGART: Will the provisions of this section apply to all agricultural fairs, regardless of whether they are in receipt of a grant from either the Dominion or a provincial government?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Mr. LEWIS:: I am just a little surprised at the Minister of Agriculture fathering a provision of this kind. I am particularly surprised1 after his recent return from Toronto.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend suggest that he is not surprised at my approval of the bill, while he is at the approval of my colleague?


Arthur John Lewis: I am not surprised at what any person would do who comes from the province of Quebec, because there they have
Criminal Code

unrestricted freedom; they do not believe in prohibition of any kind. It is easy, therefore, to understand the psychology of people who come from that province. On the other hand, I do not like to think that the success of our agricultural fairs should depend upon an exemption from certain penalty clauses in the Criminal Code. I think we sometimes go too far in regard to restrictive legislation and that sometimes far worse evils creep in. But I would like to see people so much interested in agriculture and the products of agriculture that it would not be necessary to draw in those who are interested only in the games of chance. The only wlay agriculture can pay is to have it put on a fair footing; then we will not have to adopt these roundabout methods of inveigling money from the people in order to assist the finances of agricultural fairs. At the same time I do not see why the fairs in our small villages and towns should be seriously handicapped iby not having these things, particularly when the people see them at ordinary exhibitions, and for that reason I am not going to vote against the amendment,


Mr. MICHAUD:: Does my hon. friend think that the people of Quebec are not as moral as .those of any other province? I understood him to say that they were taking a great deal of freedom.


Arthur John Lewis: No, I did not say anything about the morality of any people. I said I was not surprised at the attitude of the Minister of Justice, because in that province they believe in unrestricted freedom and not in prohibition of any kind.
DVCr. LEADER: I have had some experience in connection with agricultural- exhibitions and TTcnow something of the difficulties they have to labour under. I want it distinctly understood that I am opposed to gambling in every shape or form.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. LEADER:: But I would not wish to
impose my views upon others, and I know there are many people in Canada who do not think as I do with regard to gambling. I wish to support the Minister of Agriculture in this amendment, for this reason, if for no other: that these harmless games are now carried on in any case at every little fair in western Canada, against the law. I would rather see the law complied with than violated; therefore I think we should permit these games at the fairs, with the elimination of those of the most vicious kind. I do not suppose there is an hon. gentleman who

would not like to take home a Kewpie doll if he could get it for twentyffive cents. Personally, I attend agricultural fairs because I am interested in the stock; but I realize that for every one, man or woman, who goes to a fair in order to see the stock there are ten who are interested in the other attractions. And as agricultural fairs must depend to a large extent on the gate receipts they must cater of necessity to those who go to be entertained. I should like to see the midway eliminated from our agricultural fairs. I believe that some of the larger fairs in the United States have now abolished it. The state of Iowa for example does not permit such forms of entertainment in connection with their fairs. The only sort of amusement that would appeal to me apart from the exhibits is the old-fashioned game of home shoe, which is a considerable attraction at fairs in Iowa. I know that more than 1,000 people took part in that game at one fair in the state of Iowa last year and I am sure they went home satisfied with their entertainment.
I want to make sure that the same provision shall apply to the small fairs as well as to class "A" and class "B" fairs. The minister made' the statement that the larger fairs must depend to a considerable extent on the concessions they are able to sell; and if this is necessary in connection with these institutions, it is obvious that the smaller fairs that receive no federal grant must depend to a greater extent upon the revenues they can secure in other ways. We have in Manitoba midway entertainments that make the circuit of the different fairs, and if there is to be any distinction 'between the fairs that receive the Dominion grant and those that do not, it would be impossible for the entertainers to carry on. The games would be allowed at some fairs while they would be prohibited at others, and you can readily understand the difficult position these people would be in. There would be a difference between Carman and Portage la Prairie, Neepaiwa and Dauphin, Yorkton and Melville; and under any system of this sort it would be impossible to secure a midway on satisfactory terms. I think that the same provision should apply to all fairs big or little without discrimination. I shall therefore support the amendment.


Mr. KNOX:: I can hardly think that the
minister considers this part of the agricultural fair as educational. Does he really think that it is in the best interests of agriculture to have this provision enacted? .

Criminal Code


William Richard Motherwell: * My first desire was to have this apply, as the hon. member (Mr. Leader) has said, to "A" and "B" fairs, so that it might be restricted to such fairs as we give grants to and over which we have supervision. At every one of these fairs the Department of Agriculture has a representative and will continue to have one to see that there are no Smart Alee tricks practised. But I found there was little sympathy in this House with this restriction and that is why the bill is now in its present form. As to whether the provision is good, 'bad or indifferent, I have not indicated my qpinion, nor do I think my hon. friend (Mr. Knox) has told us what he thinks of it from the ethical point of view. I have been looking forward for years and years now to the time When agricultural fairs would be distinctly agricultural, and when the sports in connection with them would be eliminated. Many of the agricultural societies in the country have tried to realize the same wish but they have tried it only once, for they find that it will not go. We are trying gradually to reform society, and when the public conscience will support these fairs on their merits we shall not require devices of this kind. But until that time comes, if you cannot get money without permitting these games, those .who object to the practice ought to tell us how we can get along without them. That is the practical question which I, as head for the time being of the Department of Agriculture, must answer. I am not discussing the ethics of the question.


Mr. BRETHEN:: Evidently the demand
for this legislation comes from that type of fair which is not so much agricultural as it is in the nature of a circus. It seems to me that any fair that must depend for fifty per cent or even two-thirds of its finances, as I understood the minister to suggest, upon the turn of a wheel of fortune or upon some game of chance can hardly be called an agricultural institution, and I do not think there is any justification for such a fair. The people of any community who support an agricultural fair only on condition that these entertainments are allowed do not want a fair at all; what they really want is a circus. I am opposed to this legislation. The minister said that it was not possible to carry on a fair without something of this kind. Let me -tell him that I attended a fair in the home town of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) some years ago and found it purely agricultural. And I know that they carried on for a number of years in that way. I have not been there within the past two or three
years and therefore I do not know whether this is still true, but I do know that that fair was a success under those conditions. It was purely agricultural, and there are a great many other fairs in Ontario which have been conducted successfully along the same lines.
I am not in sympathy with any fair which is seventy-five per cent circus and twenty-five per cent agricultural.


Mr. THURSTON:: I rather resent one remark of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), to the effect that agricultural fairs could not be conducted without the support of midways. There is in my own constituency one little village which has retained the old fashioned agricultural fair, and it is one of the most educative fairs in that part of the country. In the regulations of the board there is one condition which I think the Minister of Agriculture might seriously consider and insist upon; the directors are all agriculturists. We find that in connection with a good many of the agricultural fairs throughout the province of Ontario to-day the idea is to get a big crowd into the town for the occasion, to bring money into the place, while the educational value of the fair is lost sight of. As regards the question of restricting the gambling feature of these fairs,
I agree with one or two members who have spoken in this respect, that I am not very much in favour of restrictive legislation of any kind. If people are going to gamble at all they might as well do it openly as behind closed doors, so to speak, and contrary to law. I think however that the Department of Agriculture should insist, so far as those fairs that receive grants are concerned, that the fair shall depend to a greater extent on the support of agricultural people than of those in other walks of life.
Mr. NEILL I wish to associate myself with the attitude of the hon. member for East Peterborough. He has come out flatfooted and has declared himself opposed to gambling which after all is the issue in this section. I have been rather interested to observe the mental evolutions by which hon. members who would hardly care to say that they are in favour of open gambling have brought themselves to support this section. The most frank in that regard was the Minister of Agriculture who tells us candidly that this evil-for I suppose gambling is an evil being generally recognized as such-is essential because the fairs cannot get money in any other way. That is a very frank statement but it is also a very wide one; it can be applied to a great many other con-
Criminal Code

ditions in life and lead to the adoption of the policy-"get money, honestly if you can but get money." If it is necessary to get money, no matter how, they might claim to be allowed1 to go in for a little of what is called bootlegging at these fairs. That would yield more money more quickly. I think the minister used the expression that if anjmne is opposed [DOT] to this section it is up to him to say how the money is to be otherwise provided. I do not think that necessity is imposed upon us. If a man comes and says "I cannot keep my wife and family, I am a cripple, I am old, and the only way I can keep them is by bootlegging" that would not be justifiable. I heard that defence put up in court not long ago, but it was not accepted as being a sufficient defence. There is one phase of this question that nobody has touched upon, and I am serious in saying this: It is calculated to induce young people to see or think they see advantages in gambling. It would be only in a small way I admit, but it is calculated to imbue young people with the idea-which is at the very root of the evil of gambling,-the idea of getting something for nothing. It is asked "Where are we to get the money otherwise?" The money comes out of the pockets of the people and not in a very creditable way. We might increase the vote granted by parliament rather than have the money taken out of the pockets of the people who attend these fairs. In that case we would know what we were doing; we would be calling a spade a spade.
I am not particularly keen on this section either way personally, but I cannot accept the view that says: "It is all right to gamble provided it is only to a certain extent."
I cannot see that if a thing is wrong the fact that there is partial restriction and is only, to be practised at a country fair makes it any better.


William Charles Good: It occurs to me that perhaps
the minister would be well advised to let this matter stand over for further consideration. I recall that a few years ago in the city of Brantford some midway organization appealed to the municipal council for the right to set up their booths, wheels of fortune, and all kinds of other things on the market place for about two weeks. Well somehow or other they prevailed on the municipal authorities to grant them the right-I do not know just how it was-and we had an awful experience. I think it did incalculable damage to the community. I do not know hew much money it took out of the city or how much demoralization it caused among the [Mr. Neill.[
young people. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr, Neill) has put a question that is quite worth while considering and that is how far any encouragement of this particular type of entertainment is going to lead our young people astray. I have no objection to entertainment features at fairs-they are all right, the more the better so long as they are of a proper kind.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: It seems to me that a certain amount of objection to this clause would be eliminatel if the minister left the matter entirely in the hands of the management, of the agricultural fair. What I mean by this is, that the wheel of fortune or whatever amusement feature it was would have to be operated directly by the management of the fair. Now, no one can condone the offence of gambling whether it is carried on at a church bazaar, an agricultural fair, or by a private individual. But there is this feature that I wish to point out:	Where the gambling system is operated by a private individual it may be crooked; there may be no particular rule in the game. The man operating it is very often a man who comes in from the outside and has no particular standing morally or financially in the community. He is not particularly concerned with anything except getting money, and getting it by any means that he can. Such a man is going to strain a law to the very limit. On the other hand, if it were carried on by a public body or by the management of the agricultural fair, or as we very often see it at a church bazaar -because they indulge in games of chance on such occasions-there is some responsible body back of it, and if there is anything that is obnoxious to public opinion, the people can place the responsibility where it belongs and deal with it accordingly. It seems to me that would be a sufficient safeguard and, perhaps, would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the people of the community. I believe it would, at least partially, meet the approval of those who would otherwise raise objections.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I intend to support the section. My contention is that you cannot make angels by legislation.


Mr. YIEN:: Some think they can.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: If you are going to
restrict every means of amusement for the people to-day they will amuse themselves where you will not be able to see them, and the unseen amusement, in my estimation, is the worst kind of amusement.


Ernest Lapointe: Not always.

Criminal Code


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I go to horse races once in a while and bet two dollars. Sometimes I lose, sometimes I win. I do not think I am any worse than anyone else. You find the best people in the-country to-day willing to take a little chance. Life itself is a chance. Every farmer that puts wheat into the ground is gambling.


Ernest Lapointe: An election is a chance.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Well, I think it is
fairly certain.


Mr. BOYS:: Sometimes.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am very glad that
this section is going to apply to fairs, that there is going to be some such provision. If it results in abuse the section can be amended in the future, but I am sure that the directors on the different fair boards will see to it that things are carried on properly.


Harry Leader: The previous speaker made the statement that "you cannot make angels by legislation." My opinion is that we can make people better by education. In reference to the suggestion of the hon. member ' for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) that it be left to the management of the fairs to decide whether the thing should be carried on or not, I think that is the practice now, and that we have proper supervision. The police and the directors of the fair board are careful to see that matters are carried on as they should be. I have gone around with them when they made their tour to see that there were no objectionable features in connection with any of these sideshows and midway entertainments. The police have the power, especially if the sentiment of the community is behind them, to eliminate any of these objectionable features in regard to our fairs. Perhaps in this connection I may be permitted to give an illustration. The pari-mutuel people of Winnipeg came to Portage la Prairie on one occasion when I was a member of the Fair board and they asked the permission of the board to operate the parimutuel at our local races. We have very good races at Portage la Prairie, but we do not have the pari-mutuel in operation or any gambling that I know of. We told the parimutuel people plainly that we would not allow them to put the system in operation. They threatened to take measures that would spoil our fair but we told them plainly to go to it. In any event we did not allow the pari-mutuel and in taking that action we knew the public sentiment was behind us; the people did not want the pari-mutuel there.


Milton Neil Campbell: In regard to what the
hon. member (Mr. Leader) says I am quite aware that the making of regulations for the control of these entertainments is entirely in the hands of the Fair board. What I wanted to point out, however, was that some man operating the amusements or machines might do certain things that would not be known until the fair was over. They can go on somewhere else and carry this thing on, whereas in this particular case they have all the advantages accruing to the Fair board and the responsibility should be allocated to them. If the moral sensibilities of the people of the district were hurt in any way, they could deal with it. In this particular case it would be impossible to do that, because the man has gone and cannot be found. I am not very dogmatic about it. I only throw out the suggestion, and as a matter of fact I intend to offer no opposition to the section.


George Arthur Brethen: This section is in the
nature of class legislation. If this man with the punch board were operating outside the fair ground he would be taken in charge as a criminal, and I do not see why we should make a distinction because he is inside the fair ground.


Mr. HOEY:: This excludes all others.


George Arthur Brethen: To make my position
clear on this, I move that section 5 be struck out.


George Newcombe Gordon: It strikes me this
amendment is not in order. This section is under consideration. The hon. member can vote against the adoption of the section if he wishes, but not to strike out the whole section.


William Alves Boys: If my hon. friend is against
this section all he has to do is to vote against it, and it is not necessary to move an amendment.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 8-Bailee not producing or delivering any article under lawful seizure by peace or public officer.


Milton Neil Campbell: I understand the minister had this clause under discussion with some of the attorneys general of the provinces. Perhaps he could tell us what they had to say about it.


Ernest Lapointe: This clause is drafted
by Mr. Newcombe, formerly Deputy Minister of Justice, at present Mr. Justice Newcombe, upon the suggestion of the members of the bar of Alberta, and I really think it is a
Criminal Code

commendable provision, making it a criminal offence for any one who has been appointed by the sheriff as bailee of anything capable of being stolen, to appropriate the article to his own use personally, or selling or disposing of it, or not returning it at the appointed time when ordered by the court. It has been suggested that such a provision was needed. I told my hon. friends from the west the other day that I proposed the amendment just to fill a need out west, but that if they did not want it I am not going to force it upon them.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am not opposing this provision, nor do I understand that the hon. members for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and Battle River (Mr. Spencer) were opposing it the other day, they were simply looking for information. The point I am not clear upon is as to what the position was previous to this law. If any person were left in possession of certain goods and appropriated those goods to his own use, was he not guilty of theft under the common law?


Ernest Lapointe: The trouble was that
it was difficult to prosecute on a .mere charge of theft. This has been attempted in some instances, and sufficient evidence could not be secured to convict the guilty party. Of course this will not work against an individual, and if there is anything to justify his having left the property and gone away, he cannot be convicted. The bailee in most instances i3 the owner of the property and the sheriff perhaps cannot find any other person except the debtor to act as bailee. If that ddbtor uses the property left on his hands by the court for his personal advantage, sells it or gives it away, surely it is equivalent to theft and he should be convicted for disposing of it.


Arthur John Lewis: Suppose for instance there
is said to be 2,000 bushels of wheat threshed into a granary, and the bailee is in charge of it. Some time after that he is asked to produce that wheat, and when it is taken to the elevator it is found that -there are only 1,800 bushels. It may be due to short weight of the threshing machine. Will he be called upon to prove that there were only 1,800 bushels there, or will he be protected if he produces all the wheat that was stored there at the time?


Ernest Lapointe: The last three lines of
the section protect him. They read:	'
A person accused under this section shall not be convicted if it be proved that the non-production and nondelivery of the thing bailed is not due to any wilful act or omission on- the part of the person accused.

He could not be convicted in the case suggested if the non-delivery is nut due to any act or omission on his part.


Arthur John Lewis: The difficulty is that the
onus is upon the bailee himself.


Ernest Lapointe: The same thing happens in the criminal code. A man who is accused of receiving stolen property found in his possession has to show that there has been no wilful act on his part which makes him liable.


William Charles Good: It was urged the other day
by some hon. members who are not here just now that this clause placed on the man who was charged the onus of proving he was not guilty. Has the minister given full consideration to that?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think it can
be done otherwise. I think it is identical with the case of receiving stolen goods.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On section 11-Use of word "Royal" without authority.
Ernest Lapointe: Some of my hon. friends in the committee the other day took exception to this section. The necessity or advisability of this section has been shown in many instances in recent years. Associations were assuming to use that word, and it leads in many cases to serious difficulty. Only a couple of years ago there was an institution in Toronto called the Royal College of Science,' and other scientific associations there, especially the college of ophthalmology, took strong objection to it and wrote many letters to His Excellency the Governor General and to the government about it. In other cases I may say that even swindlers have used the word "royal" and have associated it with the rest of their name in order to deceive the people, and it is certainly not paying the care and attention which ought to be paid to this word, so long as we have the respect for it which we have in this country. It was stated that there was nothing of the kind in England. Well, the use of the words "royal" and "imperial" is forbidden in England save with the consent of the Home Office. It is so enacted in many statutes of the United Kingdom. In this country important associations are using that name, but are following the practice of asking leave to do it, and there is no objection to that. What is objectionable is that this name should be used indiscriminately for all sorts of purposes by all sorts of firms and associations without asking leave to- do it. Unless this is made an

Criminal Code
offence, there is no possibility whatever of dealing with a matter of this kind.
This cannot work any injury to anybody, because those who want to use it and who are entitled to use it, will be given leave to do so. I really think, out of respect for the word "royal," we should not allow it to be misused as it is to-day. Only a couple of years ago we prevented, I think by legislation,, the use of the term "red cross" except by the Red Cross Society. Soane firms had begun to use the term in order to benefit by the popularity of the name in the selling of their goods. The practice here, for instance, is always to refuse to a Dominion company the use of a provincial word. We would not incorporate here any company with the use of the word "Ontario" or "Quebec." On the other hand, Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces do not use the word "Dominion" or "Canadian" in giving charters to any corporation, firm or association. I think those names should be left untouched except by the usual leave.


Arthur John Lewis: I have no objection to this
legislation provided that registered trade marks that are already registered in Canada such as "Royal Crown Soap" and that kind of thing are allowed to continue as at the present time. I do not believe in the indiscriminate use of the word "royal" for anything that comes along. For that reason I am going to support the section on condition that all existing registered trade marks are exempted from this.


Ernest Lapointe: I think that is covered
by the clause. There is a proviso:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any case in which the use of the word "royal" is authorized by or under the provisions of any statute of Canada.
The Trade Marks Act in England which forbids the use of the word "royal" or "imperial" in the same way has also this exception. It does not apply to old firms which have had trade marks with that name.


William Charles Good: Is the minister quite sure that all cases where the word "royal" is being now used in Canada are covered by this last proviso? May there not be some cases where the word "royal" has been appropriated and in common use for a long time, and where that use is not sanctioned or approved by statute?	What would be done in such
cases?


Ernest Lapointe: A reasonable hearing
would be given to their request, but surely they should apply for leave to use that word.


William Charles Good: I do not see any provision
in this clause for them to apply for permission to continue the use of the name. Where is that permission given?


Ernest Lapointe: I would not like to give the assurance that all those who indiscriminately use the word "royal" should be left in possession of it, if really they should not use it.


William Charles Good: Nor I, either.


Ernest Lapointe: As I have stated, even
swindlers have used that word.


John Jabez Thurston: Are they notified to
stop using the word before a fine is demanded from them?


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely.


Milton Neil Campbell: This is the most absurd piece olf legislation I have seen passed in this House, or placed before this House, during the last four sessions.


Ernest Lapointe: There is a new one every day apparently.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am sorry the minister
did not allow his own judgment to prevail instead of being prevailed upon by others.
People until now have been permitted to use the name "Royal Yeast Cakes," "Royal Crown Soap," "Royal Household Flour" and a thousand and one other little things that have been household articles for a generation or two. I know of nothing that will lower the dignity and prestige of royalty more than legislation like this. If we are going to be forced by legislation into respecting royalty, our respect for it is not going to last very long. If there is anything that has perpetuated respect for royalty in the British Empire, it is the very fact that it has not been forced upon the people. People do it voluntarily. We respect royalty simply because it is there by the will of the people, not by any political coercion. It seems to me that this is only the thin edge of the wedge in setting up a prejudice against the institution.


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. member not the wrong angle of the matter? This does not force the royal family on us or off us.


Milton Neil Campbell: Not entirely, but if the name cannot be used in any other sense-


Arthur Meighen: Legislation provides that we cannot in this country utter language respecting the royal family.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is that not true of any individual? You cannot use certain language against individuals.
Criminal Code


Arthur Meighen: It is quite different and rightly so. This is the same in every country in the world. The great mass of the people, nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand, would never dream of doing it; but it is unseemly, inconsistent with what strikes the great mass of the people as right and decent that the thousandth man should be allowed to do it. This is just conduct of a similar character. It is trafficking in the world "royal." What right has anybody to use the word "royal" indiscriminately and place it before a yeast cake? The value of it consists in the respect in which the Royal family is held. That fact surely is a reason why anybody on earth, whether the purpose is bad or half bad or foolish or something of that character, shouid not be allowed, just of his own free will, to bandy the word about in every shape and form on every billboard in the country. That is the principle that is behind the matter. I do not think there is a country in the world where this is not law, and it seems to me it is right and proper. Nobody is going to be fined without warning; nobody ever is fined without warning in legislation of this kind; and I fancy a very generous use of the word can still be allowed. This is simply to permit of such restrictions as are consistent with what the ordinary mass of democracy regard as respectable in relation to the Royal family.


Mr. PUTNAM:: My hon. friend from
Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) asserted that this was the most foolish legislation of the last four sessions.


Arthur Meighen: We all dissent from
that.


Harold Putnam: As a general supporter of this government I hope he is right. He boldly asserts that the prohibition of the indiscriminate use of the word "royal" tends to disrespect for the Royal family. It is odd that public opinion in England, where they are measurably loyal to the Royal family, has taken the opposite view, and the use of the word is forbidden except in very rare and very conservative instances. In addition to what the right hon. leader of the opposition has said, it does seem to me that part of the policy of this prohibition is to prevent an unfair advantage as between advertisers, because the use of the word "royal" connotes a possible degree of governmental favour towards the advertiser employing the term. Right in my own town, as solicitor, I was engaged in the incorporation of a garage company that had theretofore called itself The Royal Garage Company, but the provincial authorities of Nova Scotia pointed out that

it was against the policy of the governments both there and at Ottawa to grant incorporation of any joint stock company under this distinctive word. For my part, I can see a dual reason for this stand, and I am surprised at what I must characterize, with all respect, as the tangent at which the hon. member for Mackenzie has allowed his mind to travel.


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I cannot see any particular advantage to be gained by the use of the word "royal" just so long as it is open to everyone to use it; but the moment you restrict its use there might be an advantage to a firm putting the word on any brand of goods.


Mr. MANION:: Is it not just as true that
there is no disadvantage if everybody is prevented from using the word? Therefore the amendment really does not matter.


Milton Neil Campbell: Then why any necessity for the amendment?


Ernest Lapointe: Because some people
think differently from my hon. friend.


Milton Neil Campbell: The logical thing now
for the minister to do is to restrict the use of the words, "Canadian," "national," and so on.


Harold Putnam: Who shall be the judge
of what is logical? Shall we leave the standard to the hon. member for Mackenzie?


Milton Neil Campbell: The minister is making himself the judge in this particular case.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no.


Harold Putnam: I think if the hon. gentleman would give reasons rather than conclusions he would be employing his time better.


Mr. SHAW:: The member for Colchester
(Mr. Putnam) made some reference to there being similar legislation in the Mother Country. Has similar legislation been passed in England?


Ernest Lapointe: The use of the words
"royal" and "imperial" is forbidden in England, save with the consent of the Home office. Several imperial statutes, particularly the Trade Marks Act 1905 and the trade mark rules 1920, contain such a prohibition.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Why did not the minister include the word "imperial" in his proposed legislation?


Ernest Lapointe: I admit that in England the use of both words is forbidden.

Criminal Code


Mr. BAXTER:: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think we need take very much time discussing this amendment. I would be inclined to agree that there is not any great necessity for the proposed legislation. There is no tremendous amount of harm being done, I suppose; it is not something that exposes anybody's life or liberty to danger. But really the necessity for this amendment, so far as there is necessity, is evidenced by the remarks that have been made to this committee this afternoon. What we desire to cultivate among the people of Canada is just a bit of gentlemanly manners and good taste. The man who tacks on to a pot of blacking the word "royal," or some similar designation, that brings to mind that its use has the approval of the Royal family, is not acting in good taste; he is not elevating citizenship; he is not setting up the ideal that ought to be set up everywhere throughout the empire that, the Royal family, because it is the Royal family by the will of the people, is the highest ideal of the people in our form of government, and therefore ought to be respected. A man should no more desire to use that word indiscriminately in connection with a pot of blacking than he would want to call the sovereign by his Christian name. Of course, some people would brag of doing that. There are some parts of Canada where apparently people want to do this sort of thing.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that the Maritime provinces?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I have not met with any
examples of it there, but from the group my hon. friend is a member of I have seen some distinctly un-Canadian exhibitions since I came to this House.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Are you the judge?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I am not judging. There
is considerably, more feeling towards the United States of America than there is towards the British crown. It does not apply to all, but to a good many in western Canada.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I have been in the
Maritime provinces, and I have heard more talk of that kind there than in western Canada.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Very well; all I can say
is, western Canada is badly represented in this House, because if the electorate could come here they would hear uttered a good many words disloyal to their country and to the empire.


An hon. MEMBER:: From whom?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: They come from members who are sitting to my left-from no other part of the House. We do not need the American ideal to be set up before us, and yet every session we have paraded almost everything that takes place across the line, as if the American ideal was far superior to our own. Among other things, we are told that we do not want British immigrants. Take the British flag itself, the man who ha3 the proper spirit of citizenship would not use the Union Jack for a floor decoration and walk upon it; but some people can see no reason in the world why that combination of colours and lines would not make a very pretty pattern for a carpet. These people need a little bit of education. If they are not able to accept education in the ordinary way, sometimes it is necessary to enforce a rule such as this. This law is setting a standard of gentlemanly conduct towards the highest ideal that we know within the empire.


William Charles Good: Mr. Chairman, I think the
amendment is not too bad, but I question whether the minister is not going to get into serious difficulties working it out. I should like to have some assurance from him that concerns now using the word "royal" without the sanction of any particular statute, are going to be free from penalty. There is no provision here which would enable them to secure notification or warning before they would be subject to prosecution. I do think that from that point of view the amendment would work out very badly. Would not the minister consider some modification of the section? Or would he give some assurance as to what would be the procedure in the case of certain words in common use that are not sanctioned by statute?


Ernest Lapointe: The procedure would
be to ask for leave to use the word.


William Charles Good: From whom?


Ernest Lapointe: I think application
should be made to the Secretary of State, who would transmit it through the Governor General to the Home office, where such permission is granted. My hon. friend may be assured that this has been done by certain institutions. When I was Minister of Marine and Fisheries I remember making application for use of the word "royal" by the Royal Yachting Association of Hamilton, and permission was given. My hon. friend may be certain that nobody would be treated harshly; the very nature of this provision would prevent it. I am sure that the Royal family, the Canadian government or the Home office
Criminal Code

would not prosecute anybody in the way my hon. friend has suggested. However, I am glad he thinks this proposal is "not too bad after all," in view of his neighbour to his left having said that it was the most foolish thing he had ever heard of.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I hardly think anything
is likely to arise such as the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) fears, but there is the possibility that some man will rush in with a prosecution and no one can tell. I would suggest the addition of these words:
Nor shall any prosecution be commenced under this section except by the order of the Attorney General of Canada or the attorney general of a province.
So that it will not be a private prosecutor.


Ernest Lapointe: Will that satisfy the
hon. member?


William Charles Good: That will be a great assistance.


Ernest Lapointe: I accept the amendment.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I oppose this particular
provision. I want to pay my respects to those in authority. I do not think anybody will be induced to pay any additional respect by reason of any statutory enactment of any kind; but the situation seems to be now well taken care of, because, as the minister himself has said, anyone who wants to use the name "royal" for the purpose of an incorporated company or some similar purpose, must make application to the Dominion Secretary of State or the Provincial Secretary of State, in which 'case the word "royal" may be and, I have no doubt, often is eliminated from the proposed name of the company. The objection I see to this legislation is that what is now exercised as a civil right becomes, by virtue of this proposed legislation, a criminal law. There is too much of a tendency nowadays to take civil wrongs and convert them into criminal wrongs. More than that, I do not see where this legislation is properly going to stop because, if you are going to make the word "royal" exclusive, you must naturally and logically similarly make provision for the word "imperial," and I do not see any reason why this should not be extended further to the word "majesty," even to the word "king" itself. Surely no one would suggest that the latter word should be eliminated from the surname of a good many people including a number of distinguished people in this country. If any wrong is done, there is ample remedy at the present time. I remember very well a case which arose in our province in which a dilapidated draying outfit, taking
[Mr. Lapointe.1
advantage of the situation, called themselves the Grand Trunk delivery. The Grand Trunk Railway Company. were rather impressed with the dilapidated condition of this delivery rig; they brought action in the courts to restrain the use of the term, and an injunction was promptly granted because the delivery man was taking advantage of a name to which he was not entitled. If any damage is done by the use of these or similar words, there is ample remedy at civil law. There are also protective measures, as the minister has stated, by the Secretary of State using the power which he has in the case of incorporated companies. Consequently, I feel that to make a criminal offence out of what is at most a civil wrong is a very serious entrenchment upon the rights of individuals. I say this with every respect for the Royal family. No one could have more respect for them than I have. I do not believe it will be the wish of the Royal family that the mere use of such terms should impose a criminal penalty upon any individual.


Harold Putnam: Alluding to the remarks
of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw), I think he seems to assume that the proposed barrier against the word "royal" corresponds with the line at which the word is allowed or disallowed upon application at present. That is a fallacy, because in hundreds of cases people now of their own volition are assuming to use the word "royal" on all sorts of advertising devices and in connection with little partnerships and companies whether properly incorporated or not. Therefore, the remedy which he would assume as at present in the hands of the authorities is not there.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Does my hon. friend not admit that if any damage is done by the use of this term or any similar term, there is an adequate and complete remedy at civil law my way of injuncton or damage?


Harold Putnam: At the present time
there is no penalty at all in scores of cases for the indiscriminate use of the word "royal" where it is being used without even an application for it. I know cases of it right in my province where they use the term "royal" this and "royal" that. While at present a company will not be permitted to incorporate under that name, there is, so far as I know, no law under the firmament to prevent those people in that informal way from using the word "royal." In any case there is no harm in making the law clear upon the point. I do not think the word "imperial" in Canada stands in quite the same position as the word "royal." The word "royal" is far

Criminal Code
more definite to us than the word "imperial." To say that you are going to sell imperial oil or imperial oats does not infringe, to my mind at least, nearly so closely upon what is denoted by the Royal family itself as the use of the word "royal." The hon. member cited the use of the words "king" and "queen." You may talk about the Queen Shoe Company or the King Tractor Company, and it is obvious on its face that those terms are too ambitious to carry the idea of any governmental favour. But when you use the word "royal," it seems to me that you are allowing that man an unfair advertising advantage, because when you come down through all the grades of intelligence, you will find some and not a few who will actually think that when a man has the right to use the word "royal" in connection with his business, he is a little nearer the throne in some business sense in governmental favour than his competitors. We had a debate which bordered on that by way of analogy when we incorporated the United Church of Canada. Objection was taken to that inasmuch as the newly named church seemed to have under that very term some of the rights of a state church. The objection did not prevail, but at the same time I was not entirely clear that there was not some validity in the objection. I have always held that it has been part of the policy as regards the use of the word "royal" in an advertising sense that it conveys an undue advertising advantage. It is too happy an advertising term.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-Proceedings upon warrant, to enforce attendance of prisoner confined in another province.
Ernest Lapointe: I desire to move this
amendment to section 19 in order to cover an objection which was made to it by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) and the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs):
That section 19 be amended by changing the word "subsection" in line 2 to "subsections" and adding the following subsection:
(6) Where any order is granted under the provisions of the next preceding sub-section, the judge may, by such order or by such further or other order as he may deem requisite, from time to time, give directions as to the manner in which such person shall be kept in custody and returned to prison to serve the remainder of his original sentence, in case he be discharged or acquitted of the offence in respect of which such warrant was issued, or may make such other directions as in the circumstances of the case he may see fit.
This provides that if a prisoner, under the direction of a judge, has been transferred to another province to stand his preliminary trial
he shall in case of acquittal be returned to the province from which he came to serv<i the rest of his term.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 22-Trial by jury in certain
cases.
Ernest Lapointe: This amendment was
suggested by the Attorney General of Quebec but there have been strong objections to it, and as the whole matter of the right of election for speedy trial has to be considered in accordance with the suggestions that have been made by various provinces, I move that this section be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ernest Lapointe: The amendment which
I moved the other day to section 412 is in reality the bill which was presented by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham). The amendment reads:
(2) Every one who by himself, his servant, agent or employee-
(a)	By means of false or misleading billing, classification or labelling, or any other false or misleading representation or statement of the contents of any car, vessel, package or consignment, or by concealment, or failure to properly bill or disclose the entire contents of any such car, vessel, package or consignment, or by giving, furnishing or using any false address or by any other means or device, whether with or without the consent or connivance of any servant, agent or employee of any railway, steamship or other transportation company (including any railway or steamship line owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the crown), knowingly obtains or attempts to obtain the carriage or transportation by such company of any intoxicating liquor into any country, province, district or other place, whether within or without Canada, where the importation or transportation of such liquor is in the circumstances of the case contrary to law:-
(b)	Knowingly aids or assists in any manner whatsoever in the doing of any of the acts, matters or things mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section; is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment without the option of fine for a term not less than thirty days nor exceeding twelve months, with or without hard labour; and all intoxicating liquor with respect to which any conviction has been had under this section and all cases, kegs, barrels, bottles, packages, or receptacles of any kind in which the same is or was contained shall upon conviction be forfeited and shall be disposed of for medical purposes or in such other manner as the court may from time to time order.
These provisions were accepted by the House, but the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) suggested that they should form part of the Criminal Code inasmuch as under the Railway Act this provision would have to -apply only to railways that come within the purview of that legislation. To meet that objection I now move this amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Criminal Code
Ernest Lapointe: There was another amendment suggested by the Department of Labour which I read the other day and which was allowed to stand. That amendment, 347A, is as follows:
347a. Every one who is an agent is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars and not less than five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for three years who renders a false or deceptive return to his principal with respect to the sale or other disposition of any goods, unless it be proved that there was no intent to deceive.
2. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding four thousand dollars and not less than five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for three years who, being a director, shareholder, manager, officer or employee of any person who being an agent renders a false or deceptive return to his principal with respect to the sale or other disposition of any goods knowingly makes, permits, concurs in or condones the rendering of the said false or deceptive return.
This covers the case of an agent who is charged with the sale of some property and renders a false account to his principal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the minister think that this is extending the law?


Ernest Lapointe: It relates to companies. Companies may act, for example, as brokers in the sale of fruit or other commodities and if they render false accounts to the directors or managers they cannot be got at under the law as it stands.


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I recollect
the law-at least, as it was at one time- anyone making any false return was guilty of an offence.


Ernest Lapointe: They would be prosecuted under the general charge of theft.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, or they
could be prosecuted for obtaining money, under false pretences or by misrepresentation. I was wondering whether the effect of this would not be to narrow the code as it stands. I think the punishment is less in the present bill than it, was under the Criminal Cede as it stood before in respect of these questions. Under the Criminal Code there are certain cases of theft in regard to which a penalty of seven years' imprisonment may be inflicted. Would this not be a contraction of that punishment?


Ernest Lapointe: The officers of the department have recommended this provision. They point out that under the law as it at present stands companies .cannot be got at.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This has reference to the company?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. The memorandum I have reads:
fMr. Lapointe.]	.
The proposed section 347a makes it an offence for any person, including a company, to make a false return with reference to the sale or disposition of any goods. The object is to enable the conviction of a company for defrauding a customer by issuing false sales slips; a company cannot be indicted for theft, which would be the remedy in case of such practice by an individual, but if this legislation is enacted can be prosecuted and fined for making a false return to a customer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Has my hon.
friend ever thought at all in this connection of the matter of the desirability of limiting the present right of appeal so that we might improve the situation which has arisen, especially in some provinces?


Ernest Lapointe: I was about to move an amendment which will restrict the appeal clearly to questions of law. The amendment is as follows:
Subsection 1 of section 1024, c. 146 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Any person convicted of any indictable offence whose conviction has been affirmed on an appeal taken under section ten hundred and thirteen may appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada against the affirmance of such conviction on any question of law on which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeal:
Frovided that no such appeal can be taken unless notice of appeal in writing has been served on the attorney general within fifteen (15) days after affirmance or such further time as may be allowed by the Supreme Court of Canada or a judge thereof.
It is the old section with the addition of the words, "on any question of law." The supreme court decided, a few months ago, that they have no jurisdiction on matters of fact in the Davis case of Montreal. The object of the amendment is to make it perfectly clear that this appeal applies only to questions of law.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In that connection-my hon. friend will have a more intimate knowledge of the matter than I have -but from what I have seen and the cases I have noted there seems to have been a much wider extension of the practice of appeals than my hon. friend ever thought would take place when he introduced this legislation. I do not know that he introduced it; perhaps it was his predecessor. I do not believe the House ever thought for one minute that the practice of appeals would grow as it has grown. It is not a practice which is a good thing for the enforcement of law. Personally I think the old practice of the stated case gave every prisoner a proper opportunity. Under that practice he had the right to apply to the trial judge to get his stated case for the information of the other court as to misdirection, mis-reception of evidence, misapplication and the like, in addition to his right to appeal on absolutely technically legal points. As it is

Royal Assent
now we have a general appeal. I know that for years in the civil courts the doctrine has been more and more pronounced with respect to a court of review, or an appellate court, dealing with findings of fact for which there was evidence in support. The trial court has the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and hearing them, of getting the atmosphere which would enable it to determine whether the witnesses were really telling the truth or not. You cannot reach a decision by reading cold type nearly as well as by hearing a man, seeing him and having the opportunity of considering properly all the circumstances. Still, a method of jurisprudence has grown up to the contrary around several cases which, for some extraordinary reason, has been applied to criminal cases. I know what the opinion of the prosecutors is in Montreal. Has my hon. friend considered as to whether it would be well to make this provision go a little further and to at least restrict somewhat the present omnibus right of appeal which exists?


Ernest Lapointe: There is much to be said in favour of the contention of my hon. friend, and I do not know whether I would not be inclined to think as he does on this question. I am afraid this House paid too great a compliment to the Senate when, two years ago, it adopted without much consideration the bill establishing the right of appeal in criminal matters which came to us from the upper chamber at the end of the session. The Senate had been investigating this matter during two sessions, as my hon. friend knows. It is really the English law on appeal which has been adopted in this clause, but it did not work with all the success which might have been desired. Indeed the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) alluded -the other day to a case which -caused considerable comment in his own district, and throughout the province of Alberta, last year. It was a case where a man who had been found guilty of murder and sentenced to death saw the verdict changed into one of manslaughter iby a court of appeal, and t-he sentence -changed into imprisonment for five years. In consequence of this action some -feeling was aroused among the population of the district. I have nothing to say as to whether the judgment of the -court of appeal, which was a majority judgment, was right or wrong, but it caused much comment in the press, and I remember having read a letter from Senator Griesba-oh, who had been attacked because he had supported the right of appeal in the Senate. He said he was inclined to think that the provision had not worked with as much success as he had -anticipated, but it was better to preserve the right for some time longer and have a real experience as to how it worked before attempting to repeal it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does not my hon. friend think the trouble that has arisen is due to ignoring this fact-that in England in a criminal appeal they do not interfere on a question of fact if any evidence whatever is produced to support it. I think if the appeal here was -limited in the same way we would have no trouble.


Ernest Lapointe: I can assure my hon
friend this question is not dead. I am inclined to agree with him that we should try and do something which would remedy the condition complained of.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING

A message was delivered from the Senate as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the House went up to the Senate,
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to correct a clerical error in Chapter 166 of the Statutes of 1924, intituled: "An Act for the relief of James Henry Kirkwood."
An Act respecting The Toronto Terminals Railway Company.
An Act for the relief of Jessie Louise Cowan.
An Act to incorporate Guarantee Trust Company of
Canada.
An Act respecting The Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada.
An Act respecting the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.
An Act respecting The Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.
An Act respecting the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada, Limited.
An Act respecting Joliette and Northern Railway Company.
An Act for the relief of George Thomas Grigor.
An Act for the relief of Ethel May Sherriff.
An Act for the relief of Max Arno Frind.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Burns.
An Act for the relief of Fred Herdman Ogden.
An Act for the relief of Marion Gooderham Smith.
An Act for the relief of Edith Mary Wiles.
An Act for the relief of Annie Kate Winch.
Royal Assent
[Stage Direction]
An Act for the relief of Florence Kate Coutts.
An Act for the relief of George Kerr Jess.
An Act for the relief of Thomas Aimer Shields.
An Act for the relief of Roderick James Ellis.
An Act for the relief of Florence Mann.
An Act for the relief of Samuel John Pegg, junior. An Act for the relief of Izzie Klinmentz (otherwise known as Izzie Climans).
An Act for the relief of John Hutchison Duman.
An Act for the relief of Richard James Wright.
An Act for the relief of Mary Ellen Ayre.
An Act for the relief of Helen Mary Pritchard.
An Act to incorporate the British Consolidated Assurance Corporation.
An Act to extend the period of the Canada Highways Act.
An Act respecting The Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company.
An Act to amend The Government Annuities Act, 1908.
An Act to amend The Migratory Birds Convention Act.
An Act to authorize an extension of time for the completion of The Saint John and Quebec Railway between Centreville, in the county of Carleton, and Andover, in the county of Victoria, N.B.
An Act to amend the Act to authorize Rearrangements and Transfers of duties in the Public Service. An Act	for	the	relief	of	Harry Hambleton.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Laura Grace Davis.
An Act for the relief of Alice Brouse.
An Act	for	the	relief	of	Robert Lawrence Anderson.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Pearl Hibbard.
An Act for the relief of William John Taylor.
An Act for the relief of Albert Edward Cottrell.
An Act for the relief of Florence May Mott.
An Act	for	the	relief	of	Ellen Mary Harvey.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Stella Florence Brickenden.
An Act for the relief of Frank Alexander Michel (otherwise known as Frank Alexander Mitchell).
An Act for the relief of Thelma Adeline Rose Hands. An Act for the relief of Jean Veronica Margaret Wright.
An Act for the relief of Ruth Darcy Blinn M rCrim-mon.
An Act	for	the	relief	of	Thomas George McElligott.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Alvin Wesley Richards.An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Cecil	Tanner.An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Ruth	Ellen McGowan.An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Edith	Kearsley Smith.
An Act for the relief of James Raymond Armstrong. An Act for the relief of Josephine Royant.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Margaret Burkart. An Act for the relief of Vera Thelma Gooderham.
An Act for the relief of William John Fuller.
An Act for the relief of Alfred Augustus Jacques. An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Paul	Zizis.An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Annie	May Blunt.
An Act for the relief of Grace Harringtin Bloom.
An Act for the relief of Ian Somerled Macdonald. An Act for the relief of Arthur Beldon Morrison.
An Act for the relief of George Edward Sharp.
An Act for the relief of Marjorie Morton.
An Act for the relief of William Ernest Hampson. An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
An Act to amend The Dominion Lands Act.
An Act to amend The Customs Tariff, 1907.
An Act respecting the publication of the Statutes. An Act to amend The Department of Immigration and Colonization Act.
An Act to amend The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy Strathy.An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Minnie Williams Goldberg.An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Charles Arthur Sara.An	Act	for	the	relief	of Frederick George Randall
Lacey.
rMr. Speaker.]
An Act for the relief of Norma Evelyn Stevens Hammond.
An Act for the relief of Lillian Yaffe.
An Act for the relief of Charles William Dickinson.
An Act for the relief of Charles Murray Cramsie.
An Act for the relief of Frederick William Mallyon.
An Act for the relief of Ruth Dorothy Rutenberg.
An Act for the relief of Mollie Weiner.
An Act for the relief of Lillian Rebecca Mains.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Elizabeth Ruth Badgley
Shaw.
An Act for the relief of Lillian Helena Caldwell.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Elizabeth Strachan Reid
Harvey Strachan. 1
An Act for the relief of Esther Charlotte Ancel.
An Act for the relief of Birdie Cohen Gould.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Walter Roderick Wilson
Robinson.
An Act to amend The Special War Revenue Act, 1915.
An Act respecting a patent of West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company.
An Act respecting a patent of Walter W. Williams.
An	Act	respecting The Toronto Terminals Railway
Company.
An Act respecting the construction of a line of railway forming part of the Canadian National Railways between Turtleford and a point in Township 48, Range 12, West of the Third Meridian, in the province of Saskatchewan.
An Act respecting the construction of a line of railway forming part of the Canadian National Railways between Bengough and a point at or near Willowbunch, in the province of Saskatchewan.
An Act respecting The London Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Canada, and to change its name to "London Fire Insurance Company of Canada."
An Act respecting a patent of Edgeworth Greene.
An Act respecting the Ottawa Electric Railway Company.
An Act to amend The Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act, 1911.
An Act to amend The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
An Act to amend The Dairy Produce Act.
An Act to amend The Meat and Canned Foods Act.
An Act to amend The Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, 1923.
An Act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act.
An	Act	for	the relief	of James	Hooper	Robins.An	Act	for	the relief	of Jacob	Edward	Thuna.
An Act for the relief of Mary Alina Marguerite Peat.
An Act	for	the	relief	of	Isabel Davidson.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Jacob Ross.
An Act for the relief of John Delbert Boddy.
An Act for the relief of Edward Hugh Reid.
An	Act	for	the relief	of Sidney	Charles	Simmons.An	Act	for	the relief	of Kathleen Mary	Ricketts.
An Act for the relief of Sadie Dennis.
An Act for the relief of Harriet Elizabeth Couch.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Helen Strickland.
An Act	for	the	relief	of	John Henry North.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Mary Jane Apedaile.An Act	for	the	relief	of	Cecil Donnelly.An Act	to	amend an	Act respecting the construction
of a Canadian National Railway line from the end of the China Clay Branch to St. Remi d'Amherst, in th« province of Quebec.
An Act to authorize an Agreement between His Majesty the King, and the Corporation of the City of Ottawa.
An Act respecting trade between Canada and Finland.
An Act respecting a certain trade convention between His Majesty and the Queen of the Netherlands.
An Act to authorize the raising by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the Public Service.

Suppl y-R e-establishment
An Act tor granting to His Majesty certains sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1926.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order:
Second reading of Bill No. 184, respecting the Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.-Mr. Hudson.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: I desire to make some inquiries with regard to this bill, but the hon. gentleman who is the mover is apparently not in his seat. I would ask that the bill stand.
Order stands.



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Matthew William Lazenby.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Evelyn Laura Herlehy.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Biil No. 180, for the relief of Lois Kathleen Purdy.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 185, for the relief of George William Quibell.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair:
Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment-capital, 510,000.
Robert James Manion: Will the minister explain
this vote?


Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: It is used for the replacement of equipment and the purchase of small fixtures. The largest items for replacement of equipment are attended to by the Department of Public Works. This vote covers a very large number of small articles which have been broken or rendered useless. The list is extremely long, probably over a thousand articles are covered by it; ranging from sixty cents to around one hundred dollars. The largest outlay, $1,076.50, was to provide an X-ray equipment for the Christie street hospital Toronto.


Robert James Manion: What was the total used last year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It was $7,416.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Chairman, when the estimates of this department were before the 270
House at a late hour some weeks ago, I was not present, and I notice that the minister made certain references to some remarks of mine when I spoke on the budget. I should like to acknowledge the courtesy with which he referred to my remarks, differing as he did so entirely from my criticism. He was also good enough to say that he had no doubt that I did not wish to mislead the House. That, Mr. Chairman, is most assuredly the case. I should like, therefore, to go a little further into the matter and describe the basis on which I built my criticism.
My criticism is that this department has outlived its usefulness, and that considerable economies could be effected were it abolished. The raison d'etre for the creation of this department was to give assistance to the unfit men with the object of helping them in their return to civil life, and it does not appear to me that an examination of the expenses incurred by the department should be confused by the inclusion of expenses connected with pensions. I notice on turning to the Auditor General's reports that the amount included for this department is between $10,000,000 and $10,500,000. There are one or two sums comparatively small-where we are speaking of millions-included in that amount which for the purposes of my argument, I deduct, as the cost of the federal appeal board, $82,715, Public Service Retirement Act, $1,120, salaries and contingencies of the Board of Pension Commissioners, $97,523. After making these deductions I arrive at a total of $10,230,149. That I divide into three categories: salaries, $4,711,549; administration, which covers various payments made on behalf of the unfit men. such as care of patients, vocational expenses, operating expenses and the like, $2.793,541; and payments to the unfit men, $2,725,059.
At that point I make a further adjustment for the reasons I have given, in that I do not consider that the expenses connected with pensions should be included in this investigation. I consider it only fair that we should deduct those expenses. The minister has said that he does not know what they amount to, and that it would be an intricate piece of accountancy to ascertain their total. So I think we must make an approximation of the amount. In the year prior to the amalgamation we know that such expenses amounted to a little over a million and a quarter. I do not think it can be contended that they have increased since that date, it is more probable that they have somewhat decreased, for there have been fewer boards, less travelling, and

Supply-Re-establishment

presumably an increase of efficiency in the routine work. I suggest then, that instead of a million and a quarter dollars, it would be reasonable to make a reduction of $900,000 for those expenses. A portion of that wmuld come under the head of salaries, another portion under the head of payments made for the men. I therefore deduct $500,000 from salaries and the balance, $400,000, from the administrative charges.
Now, the minister takes issue with me for putting all the expenditures, other than the payments to the men, into one category, for I have shown that those payments to the returned men have dropped from 56 per cent in 1920 to 29 per cent in 1924. But had I dissected these percentage figures then as I propose to do now, it would not injure my argument and I do not think it would help the minister, for it will be seen that over the course of the five years those administrative charges have remained just about constant; they varied from 23 per cent of the total in 1920 to 26 per cent in 1924. It follows then that if the payments to the men have dropped and the administrative charges have remained constant, the percentage of salaries must have increased, and they have so increased from 20 per cent in 1920 to 45 per cent in 1924.
The controversy then turns on whether it is a reasonable thing to take out the expenditures for pensions from this set of figures in order to analyse the cost to the department. I think it is, but in that the minister and I do not agree. These costs had been dealt with separately before the amalgamation, and I do not think we should becloud the issue by including them in examining into the percentage costs of the department. The pension costs can certainly not have advanced since the amalgamation, . and I contend that if the government had been thrilled with a desire to economize in all direction!?, very considerable economies could have been effected in this department.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend does not
seem to repent of the broad and, as I consider it, unwarranted statement he made on a previous occasion. He refuses to take into consideration the administration of pensions; why he should take this attitude, I do not know. The administration of pensions is a very important activity of the department, relating, as it does, to the payment of small amounts monthly to pensioners and dependents of pensioners. A close check has to be kept upon all amounts paid out and upon all the transactions in connection with the making,
[Mr Stirling.]
repealing or altering of awards, births in the family of a pensioner, remarriages of widows, and so on. My hon. friend a moment ago, in what I am pleased to consider a well meant argument, stated that the administration of pensions at this day should be easier, less' complicated or less involved than it was in 1916, 1917, 1918 and 1919. Well, I beg to disagree with him. I think I would be supported Iby medical men generally in the contention that the further we get from the war the more difficult it becomes to diagnose a case. Claims for pension or increases in pension have been almost innumerable during the last five years, and it stands to reason that the work of the medical officer is all the more difficult as we get further away from the time when the disability was actually incurred. If my hon. friend is fair I am sure he will agree with me in this regard. We are confronted with great difficulty when it comes to determining claims for pension at this time on account of war disability. The work, therefore, is more complicated, more involved, more difficult to-day than it was at that time. My hon. friend quoted a certain figure as representing the direct handing of money from the department to the men-what he is pleased to call cash payments. I do not agree with him on the figure, in the first place. Even leaving aside the pensions, which are paid direct to the pensioner, and which amount to a good deal more than he seems to contend, has my hon. friend taken into consideration the payment of claims under the insurance scheme?


Grote Stirling: I have included the
following in the third category: Pay and allowance, vocational loans, interest on war service gratuity, unemployment relief, employers' liability compensation, recommendations of Pensions committee, repatriation, and compensation for death or injury re flying.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Whoever	prepared that
statement for my hon. friend must have done so with the idea of making a case. Why did my hon. friend's informant not include insurance payments? [DOT]


Grote Stirling: Where	is that included
in the Auditor General's report?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not know whether
or not it is included in that report, but I know that we pay large amounts in death claims every year. I could give the figures, but I do not think we should delay longer on this subject. Now, in this connection there has been a misrepresentation of the facts. My hon. friend says that services rendered to the men cannot be considered as cash payments.

Supply-Re-establishment
Strictly speaking we can agree upon that. But if my hon. friend was taken ill on the road in front of my house and I invited him to come in and occupy a room in my house for two months; and if I had my physician administer treatment to him, and furnished him with food during that period, would he not consider, in the absence of any cash payment, that what he had received from me was equivalent to cash?


Grote Stirling: Certainly I would. I
would put it in the category of those payments which have remained constant during the period we are discussing.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the amount under that category?


Grote Stirling: 


Henri Sévérin Béland: Again I do not think the
statement can be borne out by the facts, because the care of patients alone is almost eon a! to that amount.


Grote Stirling: In the Auditor General's report the total is $2,453,842, in which are included salaries amounting to $172,181.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Does my hon. friend include there the amount which is represented by orthopedic appliances?


Grote Stirling: I do not think I can
offhand say where the different items were put in. That would appear from the items in the Auditor General's report.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I will quote the amounts
paid out in the various services:
Medical treatment in departmental and
outside hospitals for	men	$4,623,221	40Pension examinations	
206,901	74Orthopedic appliances	
322,673	62
Transportation of pensioners, funeral expenses, workmen's compensation, etc.. 358,027 38
With other minor items, this makes a total of $5,648,188.40. With all due deference to my hon. friend I contend that these services are absolutely equivalent to money paid to the men. Not a cent of it goes for administration purposes. True, the money is paid in salaries; but does my hon. friend think that because public money is paid to the postmaster in his town or city for the service of receiving and delivering mail the public does not get the benefit of it? This I think illustrates my contention. Thousands of postmasters throughout the country render a definite service to hon. gentlemen in this House as well as to other citizens of the country. But does any of the money which is paid to them in the way of salaries reach the public? Not at all. Yet the public benefits directly from that service. The principle is the same in 270i	[DOT]
this case. The man who is treated in hospital, who receives the attendance of a doctor paid by the state, the attendance of a nurse also paid by the state; the man who receives drugs which are necessary in his case and which are paid for with public money; the man who receives from the hospital food which is provided by the same means, is benefiting directly although he gets no money. It is all very well to say, "You have paid the money in salaries to nurses, physicians, orderlies, laundry people and power plant men, and your expenditure is therefore made uj) largely of such disbursements." Well, I admit that it is made up largely of salaries. But you cannot dispense with the services of those to whom these salaries are paid. Let me ask my hon. friend in all sincerity, if he were in my place would he stop any of these services? He would not.


Grote Stirling: Is the minister referring
to items paid to the hospitals for care of patients as items which I have considered in the category of salaries?


Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the amount paid
out in salaries for administration and other purposes as given in the report?


Grote Stirling: The salaries amount to
$4,711,000 odd.


Henri Sévérin Béland: These amounts are paid
in salaries for services rendered to the men, and without those services the work could not possibly be carried on.


Grote Stirling: Why does the amount of salaries go on increasing year by year in proportion to the total?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The amount paid in
salaries is not increasing; it is decreasing year by year in relation to the total paid out annually. If you paid $24,000,000 five years ago in pensions and to-day you pay $34,000,000 it is obvious that more iwork is entailed. Indeed, the work is a great deal more difficult now than it was at that time. And the amount paid in salaries, as well as the number of medical men employed, is being reduced.


Grote Stirling: I am not contending
that it is not. The amounts paid in salaries have decreased but the percentage on the total has increased.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not admit that for
a moment. The number of employees for administrative purposes has substantially decreased. It 'has been painful in many instances to make the reductions as rapidly as we have done, because one must bear in mind that the great majority of the men employed
Supply-Re-establishment

in the department are returned men, many of whom, although I do not know exactly what proportion, are disabled.
Both under the late administration and under this government the number has been reduced by something like seven or eight hundred a year, and during the last thirteen months we have decreased the staff of the department by five hundred. On April 1, 1924, we had 2,922 employees and on May 1, 1925 the number was 2,422, or a difference of 500. Some of these employees are girls, but at least half of the staff consists of returned men, and it is neither a simple nor an agreeable task to dispense with their services after they have served the country in the way that our returned men have done. We have made the reductions as fast as we possibly could. I am just as much impressed with the necessity of economy as is my hon. friend, and the presence or the absence of the minister in the department represents only a matter of a few thousand dollars. My hon. friend may be in the House longer than I expect, but if he is here five years from now he will rise in his place and confess that these services are absolutely necessary, unless he wishes to contend that we should stop treating those men who require treatment.


Grote Stirling: I want to make it clear
that this is not my intention in anything I have said.


Mr. BROWN:: Has my hon. friend (Mr. Stirling) included, in that $4,000,000 that he has given, the salaries paid to nurses and doctors?


Grote Stirling: The largest item is
$4,059,837, which appears as "salaries to staff and salaries at Ottawa."


John Livingstone Brown: Perhaps the minister would give us the figures for the second category.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I will hand the statement
to Hansard.


John Livingstone Brown: Have you the totals?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have. For the service
provided under legislation and order in council-medical treatment in the inside and outside hospitals, the amount is $4,760,585.66. That does not comprise the salaries for administration. It does comprise, of course, the [DOT]salaries of doctors, nurses, orderlies, those who *examine the patients, and so on, but not the administration. For that I have another figure.


John Livingstone Brown: Could the minister give
us the salaries for administration? [DOT]


Henri Sévérin Béland: The salaries for genera!
administration amount to $1,806,358.88, and for medical administration-not medical attendance-$368,201.16. The amount for genera! administration expenses such as telephone, telegrams, light, heat' and power, transportation and stationery is $59,941; total medical administration $428,142, or a total for administration purposes of $2,485,645.17. That is in the face of a total expenditure during 1923-24 of $51,000,000 odd. What difference would it make if, instead of placing the item for pensions in the estimates on another page, it had been placed1 under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment on that page of the estimates we have now under our eyes? It would not make any difference at all. Only my hon. friend would be obliged to say "Oh the amount is not $10,000,000, it is $44,000,000."


Robert James Manion: Surely the minister would not contend that $34,000,000 spent for pensions is in the same category, for example, as $34,000,000 spent by the Department of Public Works, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Railways, or any other department? Surely he would not contend that he should have anything like the proportion, or even a fraction of the proportion, of administrative costs in paying out $34,000,000 in pensions as in paying out $34,000,000 in the Department of Public Works?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I agree with my hon. friend there. I do not think the administration charges should be as large for pensions as they would be in the case that he has cited, or as they would be in the case, for instance, of a 'hospital. Still the clerical work in connection with the administration of pensions is quite large.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister the
figures for the clerical assistance in connection with the administration of pensions?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, I have not the figures
separated. My hon. friend knows that the two branches were merged, and the accounts division and the audit division are the same for both.


Robert James Manion: How many employees were taken into the pensions branch?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Eight hundred and eighty.


Robert James Manion: Those were taken from the
pensions branch into the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment?


Grote Stirling: Surely the minister must agree that the expense connected with the payment of these pensions has decreased since the amalgamation?

Supply-Re-establishment


Henri Sévérin Béland: As far as the clerical staff
is concerned I am informed dt has decreased but I doubt whether in some other respects -like the medical examination of pensioners -it has really decreased or not.


Grote Stirling: Have not the medical
boards been reduced in number in the last two or three years?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Last year we had less.
Well, I do not know exactly how many pension examinations we made a few years ago. Last year we made 40,000 such examinations. I think the number of doctors has decreased. I am not sure whether the number has decreased in the hospitals; it has decreased in the administration branch. As far as the pension examiners are concerned I am not in a position to say. Probably the number has decreased there also. The work is very difficult and very involved, and it is only by experience and by being in the position that I am to-day, that I can vouch for these statements. My hon. friends may be assured of one thing: we are not keeping one physician or one nurse that we do not require. My instructions to the officials are to keep the staff to the very lowest figure compatible with such proper discharge of the duties as the country demands. Those are the instructions and the heads of branches-the head of the medical branch and the head of the administration branch-have done all they could to reduce the staff. In very few instances have I imposed upon them the necessity of retaining someone for special meritorious reasons. They are there to testify that I have not in any way endeavoured to stop them from reducing the staff. And they have reduced it immensely; I think that has been admitted on all sides. Every one would wish that we had only 500 returned men sick and under treatment instead of three or four thousand; everyone would wish that we had less disabled returned men receiving a pension than we have. Unhappily this is a situation over which my hon. friends have no control nor have I. We have to take the situation as it is. This is a result of the war. It is deplorable that the rvar should have happened, but it has happened, and it has sent back to' this country thousands of disabled men. We have actually 44,000 disabled pensioners, and
20,000	dependent pensioners-widows mainly- in this country as a result of the war. That entails a large expenditure. No one would like to have it reduced, if that were possible, more than myself. I find no satisfaction at all in authorizing this expenditure of money nor does the House; the only satisfaction we find is in the conscientious discharge of a public
duty. I take this opportunity of saying that the department-generally speaking and in almost every respect-has been conducted above party lines. That generally speaking was true of the late administration and it has been the case with the present one. I think my hon. friends will acknowledge that I have not dismissed a great many men for political reasons in the department. Coming back to this item of capital expenditure I do not think there is any difficulty on that score. The amount spent during the year, which I said was $7,411, was only for ten months: for the complete period it is $9,000 odd.


Robert James Manion: At this late stage of the
session I do not wish to occupy very much time in dealing with any question, and I shall only speak briefly on the subject under discussion. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), it appears to me, deserves the gratitude of the House, even the gratitude of the minister himself, for giving his study to these figures, for having pointed out figures which certainly look rather strange when one studies them. There is no desire on the part of the hon. member for Yale, or on the part of any member, to do other than treat the returned soldiers, the pensioners, and all the dependents of those who did not come back, with the finest type of gratitude and generosity. There is no question about that. At the same time any money which can be saved in administration and any money which can be saved in the payment of unnecessary salaries is that much less money which the people of this country generally, including the returned soldiers themselves, have to pay. In regard to the figures given by the minister, I cannot quite agree that there are $34,000,000 paid out in pensions which should be dealt with in the ordinary way, in addition to the $10,000,000 of expenditure for this department. I am now giving rather large figures, I should have said $8,500,000 paid out by this department; because certainly a large proportion of the pensions after this stage of the war would be simply repetition where you would be paying out in an ordinary routine manner pensions which are permanent. For instance, take the man who is blind, the man who has lost an arm or a leg, or any of those men with permanent injuries which are obvious- and there is quite a large proportion of them-they receive their pensions in a routine manner from year to year. The work is nothing but simply sending out cheques. So that to suggest that the spending of the $34,000,000 on pensions is in the same category as spending $34,000,000 on
Supply-R e-establishment

other lines of work would hardly be fair. I think the minister admitted to me that that was hardly on all fours. At the same time he implies that it is nearly so, and certainly it would not appear to me to be in the same category. History shows that in every country after every war new departments have been created, new staffs set up, new groups of men and women given employment, and it is difficult-I agree with the minister in that respect-to cut down the staff, and wipe out services and do away with departments, but in most countries they attempt to do it. I do not believe that in any country they ever come back after the war to the grade of expenses that existed before the war, but we should make it our endeavour, particularly with the heavy burden of taxation under which we suffer, to do our best to get back as far as we can to former conditions, because every economy that may be made is that much less money to be paid by the people generally and by the returned soldiers themselves. Without going more deeply into it, it would appear to me, looking at the figures superficially, that there is, if not too heavy, at least a very heavy proportion of the money paid out by the department in administrative expenses and salaries. I do. not say that the minister has not made an attempt to cut down some of the staff. I know that he has. Many hundreds have 'been laid off.
Last year I spoke to some of the 9 p.m. men around the country in the minister's department, and they told me that in certain branches of the department there was great overstaffing. I do not know that that is true this year, because I have not discussed the matter with them, but the salaries and administrative expenses would appear to be heavy on the face of it for the amount of money paid out,' setting aside the pensions. I can hardly agree with the minister when he makes the statement that there have been no appointments or dismissals for political purposes. I do not know that such a proceeding has been general; I doubt if it has been, but I know of at least one case, and I have heard of others. One man in Port Arthur who had served overseas, the president of the Conservative Association, was laid off, to be replaced by a Liberal who had not served overseas, for no reason except that he was of the wrong political colour. I know of other sections where the same conditions prevail. I believe that in the near future we must attempt-and this is not with any intention of criticizing the minister in that respect-to put this department in with another department. I think the
[Mr. Manion.l
time has nearly come when we should do away with that department and put it under the Department of National Defence. It would appear that we have enough administrative powers to carry on the department without loss to the soldiers and without loss to the country, and I repeat that the minister might well be advised by the hon. member for Yale, who brought up the subject, to make greater efforts than he has in the past to cut down the salaries here and there, and from an administrative standpoint to reduce expenses where it can be done without doing injury to the soldiers or their dependents.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I should like to
say a word, in regard to the general position which this department occupies. The work of the department, as I said three years ago, in the treatment of the returned soldier, will not be curtailed. I repeat-and I believe you will find it to be correct-that the number of men to be treated, while it has fallen for two or three years after the war, will begin to ascend in number. Never before did we have a war which had such far-reaching effects upon men. As far as the modern army goes, epidemics will never occur again. Scientific methods have removed the danger of an epidemic in the modern army, and if it does occur, it must only occur through the carelessness or negligence of those in charge. If you consider the effect of the late war upon the men who took part in it, by reading the papers every week you will find a record of some veteran who has suddenly passed away; some violent or sudden death will be recorded in nearly every weekly report. These are found to be due to causes of which I believe many of the medical men in charge of the treatment of returned soldiers are not aware. I have found, from constant contact with the men who served, and following them up since, that the effects of the war have not been studied by the medical men of the day as they should be. Referring to the effect on nerves, you can hardly go round any city or town where returned men are located without observing the effect of the war upon these men, and many are treating them as lead slingers, and so on, when they are really suffering from the effects of the war. Then I find that there are a great many men suffering now from the effects of gas. Bronchitis must be very frequent amongst those who were gassed, but due to lack of experience the treatment of these cases there is no great amount of sympathy in regard to them. I know that some of the expert advisers of the department can find no relation between the pulmonary troubles so frequent among those men and the

Supply-Re-establishment
effects of gas which they suffered from, but it should not be very difficult to asscertain whether a man's suffering was due to the effects of gas. It would not be very difficult to find out whether he was really on service in the zone of battle, or if 'he had served in some unit which was quite removed from that zone, in the same way as, I said some two or three years ago, you have heart cases, kidney cases and tubercular cases. These must be on the increase because they will be progressive in character, and the department, instead of turning these men down as lead slingers, as is done in many cases should sympathetically and sincerely study the case of each man. I know the minister will say:	Well, such is
done. I cannot agree with the department that it is done, because I have personal experience with many men who are affected in this way as a result of the war.
There is another class of men, of whom the. minister spoke last year, and as to whose treatment no action has been taken. That is the case of men who have aged from service. The minister knows as well as I do that there are dozens of those men who require treatment at the present time and who are not getting it. I have repeatedly requested that the government should take some action towards providing a home where these men could go for treatment. There is no use in sending them to general hospitals at the present time. The general hospital of to-day is a highly organized institution with an expert staff who will not consider that these men deserve or require that expert treatment which they should have. There are seasons of the year when this class of men will weaken, go down, and other seasons when they will, perhaps, revive and come up, and the government should provide a home where they can receive treatment as they become debilitated. These men require something in the way of particular nursing for a short time in order to bring them up again, and then they can be sent home. They are men who will never be able to do a full day's work and earn a complete livelihood, and they are not at the present time getting pension or treatment.
The great expense of this department has been brought about by unsympathetic treatment of returned men, and I am not talking now for the sake of votes or anything else from the returned men. It does not affect me whether I get that or not, but I am interested in their welfare. The government have had commission after commission. They have a pension department, a Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and now they
have a Federal appeal board. I do not consider these were at all necessary, and I do not think the Federal appeal board amounts to a great deal as far as the men are concerned.
The returned men are not getting the benefit of government work. The Civil Service Commission, I think, are playing fair with returned men, but while government work is being carried on in different places, the returned men are not getting a fair deal in regard to it. We should remember there are many men affected by the war who cannot do a full day's work, and when government work is being carried on, these men should have the first chance.
As regards further expense, the department has made some curtailments, but it should keep in mind that where positions are available, returned men should get advantage of them. If you take up the departments one b>
one, in some cases a fairly good distribution has been made, but I think the returned men can get a little better treatment than they are getting. In 1923, in the Accounts branch there were 72 employees, 33 of whom were women. To-day there are 51 of whom 23 are women. In the Central Registry, in 1923, there were 138 employees, of whom 61 were women, and in 1924, there were 104 employees, of wnom 38 were women, two of these being married women. There are a number of these cases where the minister might explain why married women are being retained. It may be that they are widows or are selected for some particular reason, but there are a number of married women in the different branches. In the pay branch, pension division, in 1923, there were 34 employees, of whom 14 were women. Last year there were 41 employees of whom 10 were women. In the records branch, in 1923, there were 81 employees of whom 44 were women, and in 1924, there were 60 employees, of whom 20 were women, two of them being married women, and so on.
Last year I made a reference-and I think it has brought about some improvement-to the fact that a very frequent occurrence in all branches was that where employees were taken off one branch they were added to another. As a result, when reductions were made through all these branches, the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment was busy building up a very large imperial pay pension department. I pointed out that where we were paying some $34,000,000 in Canadian pensions, about 62 employees were retained, but when it came to the imperial pension pay department, paying out $7,000,-
Supply-Re-establishment

000, some 122 people were employed. That has been reduced now to 95, which I still think is a little too large. I cannot understand why 95 employees are necessary for paying out,-I think, the amount has now been increased to 810,000,000. Of these 95 employees 22 are women. As a result of the decrease in staff of these branches, we are now building up a very large Federal appeal department, the number of the employees in that department having increased to fifty. It is interesting to draw the attention of the committee to these several departments, and I think a reduction can be made. I am sympathetic with the minister in his endeavour to lead the committee and the country to believe that this department is still a very necessary one. A great work lies before the department, and I think it should undertake a general review of the whole pension field, because the men point out that to-day certain ones are receiving pensions which they never really earned, while others who were affected by active service have to fight every inch for any compensation they may receive. That is something which I think should De reviewed by medical men of the very highest professional standing in this country. I think the minister is effecting a reduction in the staff, but I am pointing out to him that those who disappear off the payroll of one department will be found on the payroll of another department the following year, and this has been complained of frequently this session.


Mr. BEL  AND@: I thank my hon. friends
from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) and Kingston (Mr. Ross), not for their criticism that the department is not perhaps administered as it should be, but for their constructive suggestions. Last year my hon. friend from Kingston made certain suggestions which we have endeavoured to carry out. As regards the decrease in the staff, it is true the Federal appeal board was created some two years ago, and this entailed the appointment of additional employees, but the reduction of five hundred which has been effected during the past twelve or thirteen months takes in also the staff of that board. You cannot expect the process of reduction to go along faster than that. It does not make any difference whether there is a minister or not, the department or the branch, in other words, the service, will remain. Perhaps it is not absolutely necessary that a minister should be directly in charge of it, but some minister will have to have the branch under his charge and the service will have to be maintained. It is perhaps in order that 
I should say that I do not entirely share my hon. friend's view that the medical men of our service do not stand at the very head of their profession throughout Canada. In all our main cities we have in our service such men.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
permit me to intervene? I agree with him that he has throughout the country men of the highest professional standing, but their reports are reviewed by men of lesser experience and not so prominent in their profession.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I see my hon. friend's
point. The Board of Pension Commissioners have at their disposal nine medical advisers, all men of great ability, but of course I do not know whether they stand as high in their profession as some of the medical men in Toronto, Montreal and other cities who make reports to them. But they were in the department when I took charge, and if an appointment had to be made, no minister would undertake to refuse to appoint the medical man whom the board recommended. The board is a judicial body and entitled to a certain amount of authority in the discharge of its duties. It may be that at times reports that are sent in by medical men of the highest professional standing in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax, to headquarters, are turned down; undoubtedly in some instances this has happened, but wherever I have tried to ascertain whether this action could be laid at the door of medical officials of the board of lesser knowledge, I have failed to find that such was the case. After all, it is a matter of appreciation of the facts. In some cases, like my hon. friend from Kingston, I have thought that the reports justified the granting of pensions, and had I the same authority as the Minister of Pensions in England, I would have awarded pensions on the strength of those reports. But my judgment is not infallible, and probably the board was right. It must be remembered that out of a thousand cases you will hear a lot from one dissatisfied claimant, but you will never hear a word from the 999 satisfied pensioners. They do not complain. Why should they? My impression is that if a hundred more pensions had been awarded during the past ten years, you would not have heard any complaints. That is a small number out of the 64,000 pensions awarded, but I suppose nobody would undertake to say that those hundred cases were absolutely entitled to pensions. The board may have made some mistakes; I think they are ready to admit that they have; but who does not make mistakes? I am not here to defend the board; they are absolutely independent of me. I would never

Supply-Re-establishment
undertake to recommend to them the awarding of a pension, for it is beyond my function ; nor have I ever asked them to cancel a pension, for it is not my duty. I have in thousands of instances brought to their attention cases and asked them ito reconsider the circumstances, but without making the slightest intimation to them as to what their decision should be. Let me add that I accept with a good grace all the recommendations that have been made by my predecessor and the hon. member for Kingston, and will give them my very careful consideration.


Mr. SHEARD:: Has the department any
information regarding two suicides which took place among the returned men in the Westminster hospital, London, Ontario? I am not prepared to say that these cases ever did occur, but I am told that one man, Garnet Ellis, who was formerly an engineer in the gaol farm, Toronto, cut his throat, as did another man, although they were both under observation at the time. Has the minister any knowledge of these cases, or has he heard anything about them?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Personally I have never
heard of any such case in the Westminster hospital, which is the main mental hospital of the department, located at London, Ontario. I am informed by the deputy minister that he does not know of any such case. It may have been an accident of which the report was somewhat exaggerated. Of course it is possible that such cases would occur among the mentally deficient.


Robert James Manion: I had a letter some time
ago from a patient in which it was stated that tubercular patients-I think it was in the Westminster hospital-were kept in the same section as drug addicts. Is there any truth in that?


Henri Sévérin Béland: There would be drug
addicts among the mental cases in Westminster hospital, but unless they were tuberculous I do not think they would be kept in that section.


Robert James Manion: He claimed that in the
tubercular ward there were some drug addicts who were not tubercular and who were a nuisance to tubercular patients; moreover, the tubercular patients would naturally be a danger to the drug addicts. If the statement is true, the condition should be corrected. I know nothing whatever of it; I simply put it before the minister for what it is worth.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I shall make inquiry.


Robert James Manion: On May 6th, I asked the minister the following questions:
1.	Have any employees of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment been given permanent status by the minister without reference to the Civil Service Commission ?
2.	If so, what are the names and salaries of such appointees?
3.	Under what authority was such permanent status given?
In reply the minister gave a list of some twenty-four officers who had been made permanent, at salaries ranging from $4,000 to $5,000 a year. He stated also:
The Deputy Minister of Justice has advised that the minister is competent to make such appointments under para, (b) of sub-section 2, of section 5, of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Act.
And so on. Some of these are doctors and some are not. I do not know these twenty-four men, but why should they be put on the permanent list at this stage? Moreover, the salary would appear to be higher than it should be. A man on temporary work would naturally receive more than a man whose position is permanent, but my understanding is that these men have been put on the permanent staff at the same pay that they were receiving under temporary employment. Why was that change made?


Henri Sévérin Béland: These men are permanent not in the ordinary sense of the word but simply for the purposes of the Superannuation Act. So far as the salary is concerned, they were classified according to the rules adopted by the Civil Service Commission. In the case of those whose positions were likely to last over ten years, for instance, we found that they would be precluded from enjoying the benefits of the Superannuation Act owing to the fact that their employment was of a temporary character, and the Department of Justice gave the opinion that if the minister declared these positions permanent the officers in question could be considered by the Department of Finance as eligible to come under the Superannuation Act.


Robert James Manion: These men could be
dropped from the service at any time, by my hon. friend or any other minister, if necessary?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, at any time.


Robert James Manion: Is there any likelihood of
the minister making another large group of officials permanent in the near future?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I asked the officials of
the department to make a very careful review of the staff, but as to the exact number who may come under that category I cannot say. Pensions will run over forty years, and there
Supply-Re-establishment

will be employees in the department forty years from now. Others will not be there that long; some will be employed ten, fifteen or twenty years. Some have already been there seven or eight years. It would seem to be unfair to deny them the opportunity of enjoying the provisions of the Superannuation Act.


Robert James Manion: The matter had been
drawn to my attention and I was wondering how it could be done. Personally I did not think the minister had any right to do that; however, he has the authority of the Justice department and of course I do not wish to differ from that; they know much better than I do. But at this stage it would seem that we should rather be trying to undo some positions than to make more permanent positions. I do not say this in any spirit of criticism. So far as my remarks to-night on this or any other subject are concerned I am not in any way attacking my good friend the deputy minister of the department, a gentleman with whom I have had the pleasantest relations and for whom I have the utmost respect. But I am speaking entirely from
the standpoint of economy, and it seems strange that these men should be made permanent at this time. It might be quite a lever in the hands of a minister. Of course it would not be in the hands of my hon. friend, but it would be in the hands of a minister who is not so conscientious as he is; it would give him an opportunity to make a great many men permanent just prior to an election. I should not think for a moment that the present minister would consider such a thing. But the life of the present minister is not as permanent as the jobs of some of these men who are being made so, and I would suggest to him that he defer the changing of status of these men from temporary to permanent until after the next election and let some of the rest of us attend to that for him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Care of patients, $2,350,000.
Henri Sévérin Béland: There are at present nine departmental institutions -operated) by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-etsablish-ment. They are:
Hospitals Operated by D.S.C.R. January 1st, 1925
Unit	Name
"A"	Ste. Anne's hospital.
"B"	Camphill hospital. Lancaster hospital.
"D"	Christie street hospital.
"F"	Westminster hospital.
"G"	Deer Lodge hospital.
"I"	Colonel Belcher hospital. Central Alberta San.
"j"	Shaughnessy hospital.
Location
Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Que.
Halifax, N.S.
St. John, N.B.
Toronto, Ont.
London, Ont.
Winnipeg, Man.
Calgary, Alta.
Robertson, Alta.
Vancouver, B.C.
Type of Institution Mental, T.B. and general treatment Hospital.
General treatment hospital.
General treatment hospital.
General treatment hospital.
Mental hospital.
General treatment hospital.
General treatment hospital.
T.B. Sanatorium.
General treatment hospital.
These are the hcspitals which are under our direct administration, and the number has been reduced by two during the year. Two sanatoria were also transferred from the department to the proprietors, one in Kingston and the other in Nova Scotia, which was handed over to the province. As to the number of patients, cn January 1, 1924 there were 3,744 and an January 1, 1925 there were 3,704, or a reduction of only forty during the year. This reduction may strike hon. members as being rather small, but I can assure the committee that no man is being treated who does not deserve treatment. This is the total number of patients in the care of the department at the present time, but it does not include the care of men who come for clinical treatment at the departmental clinics in the different units, the number of whom runs into hundreds of thousands in one year. I might make the following classification of these patients:
Class of Patients-	February 21, 1925
Inpatients on pay and allowances	 3,042
General treatment	-	1,500
Tubercular	 761
Mental	 721
Outpatients on pay allowances	 79
General treatment	 60
Tubercular	 13
Mental	 0
Total patients on pay and allowances.. ..	3.121
Inpatients not on pay and allowances..	583
General treatment	 233
Tubercular	 [DOT]	58
Mental	 292
Total soldier patients	 3,704
Total civilian patients	 128
Grand total patient strength	 3,832
Number of clinical treatments	 162,989
Weekly average clinical treatments	 2,859
Outside of the departmental institutions there are a large number of patients in hospitals with which we have an arrangement for accommodation.
tMr. Beland.]

Supply-Re-establishment


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where are the tubercular
patients in New Brunswick being 'treated now? Have you given up the sanatorium at River Glade?


Henri Sévérin Béland: River Glade is no longer
under the department. I have mentioned only those institutions which are administered by the department directly. In River Glade we have an arrangement with the authorities for the care of patients there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are any patients kept in
the East St. John Tubercular hospital?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, there are fourteen
in one institution and twenty-seven in the other.


Mr. LADNER:: The minister referred to
pay and allowance, but I see that pay and allowance is included' in the general item further down the list. What would be the differenee?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Those who are in the hos-piial for observation and special mental classification do not receive any pay and allowance.


Leon Johnson Ladner: There is a decrease in the item this year of $250,000. Is that in the nature of a reduction in the annual expenditure, or is any capital involved in it?


Henri Sévérin Béland: There is no capital involved in it. It comprises mainly food, fuel, light, power, water rates, medical and; surgical supplies, dental equipment, laundry, maintenance of furniture and equipment, hospital and janitor supplies, patients' clothing and comforts, taxes and insurance, freight and express and other charges, and so on. There is a general reduction in food. There is a general reduction in the items I have mentioned, up to the total my hon. friend refers to.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The reduction in food will be only such a reduction as would correspond to the consumption by forty patients.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The cost per patient per
day has decreased somewhat. Perhaps it is due to the lower cost of food or to closer supervision and better administration. There certainly is a slight reduction, and there has been year after year, in the cost of food. Then there has been a reduction in outside hospitals where we have a number of patients. The statement includes equally the transportation of patients and pensioners who are called in for examination. When a soldier writes to the department and complains of a war ailment if we have no man in the vicinity, he may be
called to the nearest unit and there examined, in which case his transportation charges are defrayed by the department. It also comprises the expenses of escorts, in case a man cannot travel alone, and the burial of patients.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How many tubercular
patients are there in British Columbia?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not think I am in
a position to give the exact number. I am satisfied, however, that a great many tubercular patients who are not in institutions have moved out to British Columbia on account of the better olimatic conditions there.


Leon Johnson Ladner: How many institutions
are there?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have only one institution for tubercular patients, and that is at Tranquille, Kamloops, where there are thirty-four patients. We have also under observation a certain number of .patients in Shaugh-nessy hospital.


Arthur Edward Ross: In connection with the care of patients there are a number of matters I should like to draw to the minister's attention. Earlier in the session I placed a motion on the order .paper in regard to the fines imposed on patients in the hospitals of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. Since then some action has been taken in the matter, and the minister has restricted in some way the very frequent fining of patients. I should like to know what action has been taken in this regard? My point is that those who are not directly under the department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment should not have the right of imposing fines upon patients without trial.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Of course disciplinary
methods have been adopted in all hospitals. In some cases my hon. friend is of the opinion those measures have been too severely applied. The motion my hon. friend placed on the order paper had reference to these disciplinary measures, and in some instances we have thought that in order to avoid complaints on this account the superintendent of the hospital should not apply such measures without referring the case to the unit office; that in the case of the Kingston hospital, for example, the superintendent should not apply disciplinary measures without referring them for judgment to Ottawa where the head of the unit is established.


Arthur Edward Ross: I want to draw the minister's attention to the fact that in some cases there was a regular trial, but in other
Supply-Re-establishment

units there was no trial whatever: the man was simply brought up before the superintendent or officer in charge and told "You are fined a dollar" or "You are fined a day's pay," and this, that and the other. In such cases the man had no right of appeal whatever. In the arimy a trial of the fairest character is granted1. The accused has the right to say whether his -commanding officer shall try him, or whether he shall by tried by court-martial. In any case he has the -choice of someone to defend him and the evidence is formally taken. In- many of the cases to which I aim alluding there has 'been no trial whatever. In some instances an old veteran has been fined a day's -pay, or fined an amount of something over $3, for breaking a -clinical thermometer which is never -charged up in the general hospital. In other cases a man has been fined $2 or $3 for being -twenty minutes late or staying out at night, without being given any trial or the opportunity of defending hi-msellf. I think it only needs to bring th-e matter -to the minister's attention to insure that in future such fines will not be imposed on patients without a trial being granted, the evidence recorded in writing and the accused given- some chance 'of defending himself. I know of a tubercular -case being fined a day's pay simply because he used g-ood judgment, and instead o-f travelling during the night stayed over and came on next day. Any sensible -person would have said that was only common sense. In another case a man who lived out in Saskatchewan took his leave by going out on a farm, and1 while he was there on this leave a heavy rain -came up w-hich prevented hi.m from returning the next day. He was immediately -called up and fined a day's pay without being able to present any defence whatever. Later on it was found that there were legitimate reasons for his action, but no effort was made to refund the fine or to have the -punishment wiped from the records. When -these -cases -come up for future treatment and th-e records are referred to it wild be said "You have -been twenty minutes late", or "You have been out over night" or "You are a -bad and incorrigible case and we cannot consider you any further," or "You have been drank once" and so on. The record will -be there and although -the man may have suffered an injustice it has never been looked into. These men were never angels on active service, some of them were -accustomed to get drunk occasionally, but we found they were very often the best soldiers and the re-cord of their services at the front will sho-w -this. I ho-pe that -as a result of drawing t'he minister's attention to these cases he will see that when-
ever a fine is imposed in -these institutions the man shall 'be -given a fair trial -and be afforded an opportunity of making his defence.
iMr. iM-ANION: Will the minister -give the committee some figures as .to the number of patients who are being treated for tuberculosis and the cost of treating them throughout Canada.
-Mr. BELAND: I will give the number of tubercular patients on pay and allowances during the period from 1919 to 1925 inclusive:
1919		 1,480
1920		 1,096
1921		 1,054
1922		 982
1923		 869
On the first of January, 1924, we had 859 and on the 21st February, 1925, we had 761. That is the number of patients on full pay and allowances. We had thirteen out-stations and 58 patients not on pay and allowances on probation, making a total of 800 odd.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the minister the record in the same way by years of the number of deaths?


Robert James Manion: I would like to get the total figure, not only for the pay and allowances, cost and upkeep and so forth, but the whole cost to the country of these men.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am afraid I will not be in a position to give it, but I can giv^ some information which will enable my hon. friend to make out the figure for himself very easily. I will take for instance the central Alberta sanatorium, the cost per patient was extremely low, being $2.90, but I must say that in other institutions we paid a good deal more. For instance, in the Tranquille sanatorium we paid $3.50 per day. In the Fort Qu'Appelle sanatorium we paid $3.32 per day, and the King Edward sanatorium at Winnipeg, $3 00. Then in the Ninette sanatorium in Manitoba we paid $2.84. In the Byron sanatorium near London, Ontario, the cost was $3.03 per day. In the Calydor at Graven-hurst, which is an expensive place, we paid $4.59. Those were patients -under the supervision of Dr. Parfitt, outstanding specialist in cases of tuberculosis. In the Mountain sanatorium near Hamilton, we paid $3.07. In the Jordon sanatorium, New Brunswick, we paid $3.20, and in the St. John county sanatorium we paid $2.66. At the Kentville sanatorium in Nova Scotia we paid $2.55. I have not the average, but it is about $3.10 per day for tubercular patients. Regarding

Supply-Re-establishment
deaths, I think I have some information which is somewhat interesting. During the year 1924, for instance, we had 170 deaths amongst tubercular patients. In the year 1924 we admitted to hospitals in the department or outside the department, for treatment for tuberculosis, 156. We discharged 1,284. There were some transfers.


Arthur Edward Ross: You admitted
1,256.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We discharged 1,284 during that year.


Arthur Edward Ross: And 170 died?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes. We were left on the 31st December, 1924, with 793. The figures I have here are of a somewhat
10 p.m. later date. The average strength in 1924 of tubercular patients was 839 per month.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister the figures of the number in each of those different sanatoria where they are being treated?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think I have the information here. It is as follows:
Patients
Kentville	 67
East St. John	 14
River Glade,	N.B	 27
Hamilton	 63
Gravenhurst	 17
London	 117
Ninette	 40
Winnipeg	 4
Fort Qu'Appelle	 45
Tranquille	 34
Total	 428


Robert James Manion: What was the average cost of treating the ordinary patient in the various hospitals?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The average cost of all the patients was $2.94 per head.


Robert James Manion: Does that include tubercular patients?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It does in our own hospitals:
Ste. Anne's	
$2	58Camp Hill	
2	95Lancaster	
3	29Christie st	
3	69Westminster	
2	46Deer Lodge	
2	43Central Alberta	
2	90Col. Belcher	
3	86Shaughnessy	
3	48
Average cost per patient per day, $2.94.
Total patient days for six months 310,681.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think the figures
disclose an interesting point, because it is well known that the death rate for tuberculosis is falling generally. If the figures are correct
there is a mortality rate of 13 per cent among returned men, and I think that should appeal for pretty free and sympathetic treatment of returned men. There is no doubt this is due to reduced vitality, the effects of the war. Does the minister still follow what is a very good policy, in the case of men being dissatisfied during treatment for tuberculosis of having them transferred to other points for treatment or to other institutions? The department was very lenient and very sympathetic in that way. There is no disease which requires a quiet mind and a satisfied condition and contentment, if the patient is to benefit by it, more than tuberculosis, and although the men may become what you may call a nuisance, and so on, yet I think the department should do everything in their power to produce a contented mind in the treatment of this disease, and if a man is dissatisfied in one institution there should be no hesitation in having him removed to another. I consider this is one place where they might disregard the question of economy for the benefit of the returned men.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is our policy. We have always regard for economy, but when we think a patient may benefit by a change, we do not hesitate to make a change.


Arthur Edward Ross: What means has the department of knowing when a man is discontented?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have the report of the superintendent and the report of the man himself. I am in receipt of many letters in this connection.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the department still the practice of inspection of hospitals by some official?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Who are the inspectors at the present time?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have the regular inspector, that is Dr. McCombe, and, of course, the director of medical services himself. At the present time he is on a tour of inspection of hospitals under his direction.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the minister in mind at all that, perhaps, he would get a better result if now and again he would call in an outsider and ask him to visit these institutions in order to see that the men were getting fair treatment and were satisfied?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Dr. McCombe is a sort of outsider. Of course, any man that we may ask to make an inspection will have to be
Supply-Re-establishment

paid by the department. I do not think Dr. MeCom'be, prior to being employed for this special work, was employed by the department. He is a part time man, and he goes two or three times a year over all the hospitals, and makes reports upon conditions prevailing as regards, not only the patients, their treatment, behaviour and mental contentment, but the medical staff and the nursing staff.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have great confidence in Dr. McCombe, but I did not know he was regularly visiting these hospitals now.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes. He visits the hospitals about twice a year. I have regular reports from him.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does he make it a point to see each patient in the institution?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I will not say definitely whether he sees every patient individually, but I am sure he inspects all the wards.


Arthur Edward Ross: I would like to see the inspection carried on differently. The inspector should go into an institution, and without being accompanied by any of the staff, he should go around amongst the patients, take up their complaints and see that they are forwarded to the department, because sometimes the officials of an institution have a little bit of awe surrounding them which will keep patients from making complaints.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vocational expense, $5,000.
Henri Sévérin Béland: The number of vocational students is very much reduced now. It is down to 84.


Robert James Manion: How much was spent last year?


Henri Sévérin Béland: For the ten months prior to the 31st January, $3,628.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the minister a vocational department at Kingston?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: What is the term used to describe the work that is carried on by the department?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Vetcraft-a	sheltered
employment workshop which we have in different cities.


Arthur Edward Ross: Where do they
work in Kingston?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I have no information.


Arthur Edward Ross: The only work the department provides there is in the post office. I do not think there is any shop.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have no shop there,
but a few that are employed outside.


Arthur Edward Ross: This is the kind of employment they get. Men who cannot work are allowed so much a month; then they are sent out on different jobs, and whatever they earn is deducted from their allowance. I know of a diabetic case, a poor fellow who can hardly drag his two legs around, who is sent out on collections covering the whole city, and the few cents he earns are deducted from his allowance. That is what is known as the restoration of vetcraft. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction in that respect. If a man gets a few pills, he has to report every day no matter what condition he is in.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries-
Administration	 $1,275,000
Insurance and training	 75,000
Hospitals and clinics	 1,750,000
Robert James Manion: Would the minister give
us an explanation of this item?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The total administrative
and clerical staff is 1,034, distributed as follows:
Head office; four administrative officers, seven chief clerks, eight head clerks, eleven principal clerks, forty-six senior clerks, 175 clerk stenographers, 135 junior clerks, nine messengers.
A unit: One administrative officer over $3,600, one chief clerk, two head clerks, eight principal clerks, sixteen senior clerks, thirty-five clerk stenographers, seven junior clerks, two messengers.
B end K units:	r
That is the Maritime provinces. .
One administrative officer, no chief clerk, four head clerks, six principal clerks, eighteen senior clerks, twenty-three clerk stenographers, fourteen junior clerks, two messengers.
C unit:
That is Ottawa outside of headquarters.
No administrative officer over $3,600, one head clerk, three principal clerks, eleven senior clerks, thirteen clerk stenographers, ten junior clerks, three messengers.
D unit, Toronto: Two administrative officers over $3,600, one chief clerk, eight head clerks, twelve principal clerks, thirty-eight senior clerks, 106 clerk stenographers, twenty-five junior clerks, two messengers.
F unit, London:
Now a sub-unit.
No administrative officer, no chief clerk, one head clerk, three principal clerks, seven senior clerks, seventeen clerk stenographers, twenty-four junior clerks, one messenger.
G unit, Winnipeg: one administrative officer over $3,600, one chief clerk, two head clerks, three principal clerks, seven senior clerks, twenty-three clerk stenographers, nine junior clerks, two messengers.

Supply-Re-establishment
H unit, Regina: no administrative officer over $3,600, one chief clerk, no head clerk, two principal clerks, four senior clerks, fourteen clerk stenographers, four junior clerks, four messengers.
I unit, Calgary: one administrative officer over $3,600, no chief clerk, two head clerks, four principal clerks, sixteen senior clerks, twenty clerk stenographers, eight junior clerks, two messengers.
J unit, Vancouver: one administrative officer over $3,600, no chief clerk, three head clerks, five principal clerks, sixteen senior clerks, thirty clerk stenographers, eleven junior clerks, two messengers.
M unit, London, England: one administrative officer, no chief clerk, two head clerks, one principal clerk, no senior clerk, five clerk stenographers, two junior clerks, two messengers.
That is only the administrative and clerical staff. Then there is the professional and technical staff.


Robert James Manion: That is sufficient.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There are 2,317 temporary and 176 permanent employees, making a total of 2,493 as of February 20, 1925. This total has since been reduced, and is now 2,422.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Would the minister inform the committee whether he is further considering the establishment of soldiers' homes rather than continuing the present system of hospitals? I suppose there must be now a very considerable number of patients that do not require active treatment, men who may return to the hospital several times each year. I think it is well worthy of consideration whether the time has not arrived for the establishment of homes to replace some of the military hospitals. I would presume that in this case the expenses of administration and nursing would be considerably reduced.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes, this matter has engaged the attention of the department for the last two years. As a matter of fact the parliamentary committee recommended that the establishment of soldiers' homes should engage our attention to provide for those soldiers for whom treatment cannot be of any further benefit, as my hon. friend has said. It is difficult to say what the exact number of these men would be, but in order to meet the situation we have thought we should reserve in some of the hospitals a ward to provide them as an asylum. The department would house, feed and clothe the men, and in most cases they would make their own bed and in other ways attend to themselves. Usually their ward disability is small, but other disabilities prevent them from taking up work of any kind. With that in view, we have adopted an order in council, a copy of which I shall be glad to send to my hon. friend at any time, but he can find it on page 46 of the departmental report. It sets
out the conditions under which these patients may avail themselves of this opportunity. So far, I am informed by the director of medical services, we have only seven patients Who have been transferred from active treatment to another ward where they do not receive pay and allowances. We started this system two months ago and we are making the selection very carefully. The director of medical services has instructions to review all the hospitals and try to segregate these cases. In the ordinary course these men should be discharged from hospital, but occasionally it is almost impossible to do so, for it would mean putting them on the street. We offer them the option of remaining in the hospital without pay and allowances, they receiving the pensions that the board awards to them. If the pension is large enough we retain a certain amount for their maintenance. I fancy this scheme will be a great relief to such men, for their families are relieved of the obligation of maintaining them, and having become accustomed to the hospital the men find themselves more or less at home. Undoubtedly they will in large numbers avail themselves of this opportunity, and I think the saving in expense will be considerable, as my hon. friend has pointed out.


Murray MacLaren: Are there instances now where the work is being carried on by the civil hospitals rather than by the special military hospitals?


Henri Sévérin Béland: We have patients in those institutions. In some cases it is more convenient for the department to treat them in some general hospital, as for instance in the Royal Victoria hospital at Montreal.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does your inspector of medical services also inspect these cases in the general hospitals?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Not unless complaints are made as to the1 treatment, or there is other special reason for doing so.


Mr. EVANS:: It seems to me that the
examinations of the (men should be made on more sympathetic lines. I do not blame the doctors at all, but I think the examinations should not be carried out on such hard and fast technical lines. I have in mind the case of a man who is trying to make his living as a letter carrier. He has practically lost all feeling in his feet and sometimes has to lay off altogether, yet he cannot receive a pension. Another man who was in fairly good health for a while after discharge died last year and it is plain to everyone that his death resulted from his war experience, yet his wife and two
Supply-Re-establishment

little ones are left without support. In another case a man had to have his leg off nearly two years ago and he has never received any help; I think even his hospital bill is still charged up against him. It may be said that this man brought on the disability through his own recklessness, but even at that, these fellows faced death in the trenches and I do not think we should leave them without means of making a living. These cases should be more sympathetically dealt with.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister give
us a short statement with regard to the insurance-how many are insured, what amount is carried, and so on?


Henri Sévérin Béland: With regard to the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Evans) I may say that the department endeavours to take a sympathetic attitude towards cases which come to their attention. The medical examination is generally very carefully made. I do not say in some instances there is not ground for complaint; it is only human nature that some doctors, through pressure of business or otherwise, do not give to a particular case the attention it should have received. If any such cases are brought to my attention I take the necessary steps to rectify them, and if my hon. friend will take these cases up with me I will try to satisfy him. As to the inquiry of my hon. friend (Mr. Manion), up to December 31, 1924, there were 990 claims under the insurance scheme, the amount involved being $2,940,500. Of the 990 there were settled by cash or annuity up to December, 1923, 498, and from January to December, 1924, 183, a total of 681, leaving a balance of 236. Of that number 158 were cancelled up to December, 1923, under section 10 of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, which provides that if the beneficiary be in receipt of pension, only the larger amount shall be paid. Last year 78 more were cancelled for the same reason, making a total of 236. Claims pending settlement on December 31, 1924, numbered 73. Total number of policies in force on January 1, 1925, 27,666, involving a liability of $61,404,500. We have a premium income which for the year ended December 31, 1924, amounted to $1,742,235. We had a balance in the treasury as at December 31, 1923, of $1,696,656 making a total in the treasury on December 31, 1924, of $3,438,892.48. During 1924 the expenditure was $545,045.04, so that on January 1, 1925, there remained a balance of $2,893,847.44. This department so far has been self-sustaining and will be for a number of years, but as the

expectation of life diminishes more claims will have to be paid, and it is not in my power to say what will be the outcome. It is possible that in the future the government will have to lay out some money in this connection.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pay and allowances-treatment, $1,750,000; training, $60,000.
Henri Sévérin Béland: This amount is paid in
cash to the men under treatment or under training. There will be no difficulty over it, because it goes entirely to them. The pay and allowances are regulated by an order in council passed many years ago. There is so much per day for the man and pay and allowance to his dependents if there are any. There is a decrease in the item of $290,000.


Arthur Edward Ross: There are a few
men whose cases are very sad. They are receiving compassionate treatment in the hospitals and their position is most critical, as they have no money and are altogether without any means of securing assistance. I know of one man, . who has no relations whatever, Whose only means of getting even enough money to have his hair cut is fortune-telling. Could not the department extend a little better treatment to these men who to-day are left to t'he care of the Red Cross and other charitable institutions? Two or three men that I know of are absolutely without any means.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They are receiving the
best consideration. My hon. friend says he has two or three cases in mind; I have more than that. I have received a number of communications in regard to men who are apparently not entitled to treatment by the department and who claim that at least they should be treated without pay and allowance. In the case of many of these men we attempt if possible to relate their disability or disease to war service, and in the meantime they are being treated without pay and allowance.


Arthur Edward Ross: In many cases the
condition of these men is, I fancy, due to a difference of opinion among the medical men, one attributing their disability to war service and another differing from this view. I have always understood that wherever there was a doubt the department gave the returned man the benefit of it; and as I say, the condition of some of these men is most pitiful.


George Black: 
Henri Sévérin Béland: I listened with interest
to the resolution quoted by the hon. gentleman, and I may assure him that as a matter of fact the DeSouttar limb has been engaging the attention of the department for the last two or three years. Personally I have been much interested in it; but whatever may be said in favour of it, even in England it is still in the experimental stage. The British Ministry of Pensions has not adopted the DeSouttar limb definitely. We have purchased a few of these limbs in order to carry on our observations. It is not a question of dollars and cents, and if the DeSouttar limb will benefit the amputation cases to a greater extent than the limb we manufacture here, we are willing to pay the extra cost; there is a difference, I think, of about $70 each in the cost of the two limbs. The DeSouttar limb is somewhat lighter; I am informed it is eight to ten ounces lighter than the limb our men wear. I am also informed that a number of amputation cases like the DeSouttar limb. On the other hand others have said to me that they prefer the Canadian limb. Whether or not we should say to the amputation cases "You are welcome to the DeSouttar limlb if you want it" is a matter for consideration and discussion. So far we have not decided to do that. There are other

Supply-Re-establishment

limbs available. It has been represented to me that there are metal limbs that are just as good as the DeSouttar limb. The latter is an expensive appliance; I think it is covered by patent although I am not sure, and it would be costly to make the change. Before we do so we ought to be absolutely secure in our position that the change is warranted by the superior qualities of the DeSouttar limb. That limb is still in the experimental stage, and we need further evidence before reaching a final decision in the matter. There is now in the city a representative of the British Ministry of Pensions. This gentleman arrived in Canada lately, but unfortunately I have not had an opportunity of conversing with him as yet. It was arranged that he should see me this afternoon, but I was detained in the House on account of the possibility of my estimates coming up at any moment. However, I intend to discuss the question further with this representative of the British Ministry of Pensions. In the meantime if my hon. friend (Mr. Black, Yukon) will send me a copy of the resolution which he read I will attach it to imy file and it may prove to be useful.


Murray MacLaren: The DeSouttar limb has been in use to my knowledge since 1918, and may have been used before that year, but if so only to a very limited extent. I cannot help thinking that the letter read by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) is perhaps unduly favourable to the DeSouttar limb. It is a good limb and particularly suitable in certain cases. On the other hand in some cases there is a disadvantage in having a light limb. It is not true that the lighter the limb the better it is. There is a certain weight of limb which is more suitable than others to some men. In the case of a light limb, if there is a strong wind there is a tendency that the limb will be blown from underneath the user. However I do not wish to disparage the DeSouttar limb; it is a very fine limb in certain cases. I do not think one would go the length of saying that this limb should be supplied in all instances because it is not necessarily the most suitable or the best. The British government has not made general use of the DeSouttar limb, one reason being that the expense rendered that impossible. Furthermore, as I say, in certain cases the DeSouttar limb is not especially suitable. I believe there has been some arrangement made whereby, if an amputation case desires the DeSouttar limib the cost of an ordinary limb is allowed towards its purchase. As regards the artificial limbs that are made [Mr. B41and.)
in Canada by the department, it is only fair to say-and I make the statement from personal knowledge-they are,-shall I say, in the cases that have come to my notice-highly satisfactory. I am aware of cases where the men, in tlhe hope of obtaining a better limb, or the best limb procurable, have gone to a large centre like New York, but have finally returned home convinced that a more serviceable limb is supplied by the department over which the minister presides than can be obtained elsewhere. As regards the ordinary limb, in many cases the make is very superior and very satisfactory. I think it is only fair to acknowledge the good work that is being done here in that respect. I believe that as time goes on we may be able to secure a still better limb. I believe there is a combination between the metal and the wocden limb which possesses many advantages and can be had for a reasonable price.


George Black: I am astonished
to hear any hon. member suggest that if an amputation case requires this better type of artificial limb the government should advance him the price of an ordinary wooden leg, and that he should pay the balance. That is a policy that is altogether too economical.


Murray MacLaren: May I correct the hon.
member. I,stated that I was under the impression that the British government had arranged that plan. I did not advocate it- or express an opinion about it.


George Black: I think my correspondent stated the case in the most convincing way when he said that the only authority on the subject is the man who has to wear the artificial limib. I am very glad indeed that my hon. friend (Mr. MacLaren) has never been in that position. I quoted to the House the opinion of a man who has to wear a wooden leg. I happen to have known this man for some twenty years past, and by the way he comes from my hon. friend's constituency St. John and lived there until he moved west. He was a big strapping fellow, but now is a helpless cripple having lost his leg above the knee while on active service in France. I have another letter from the Dominion secretary-treasurer of the Amputation Association of the Great war in which he says:
The DeSouttar leg is quite popular on the other side, and a great number of them are being issued to the men. We have been trying to get a number of them sent out to this country, but the DeSouttar people refuse to ship a lesser quantity than one hundred, so we understand, and the department will not consider this.

Supply-Re-establishment
So, apparently, the matter of expense is a big factor in determining this question. I submit that the question of expense should not be considered for a moment in equipping Canada's lame returned men with the best artificial limb that can be found.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vocational loans, $10,000.
Robert James Manion: It is getting pretty late,
and we were up until nearly two o'clock this morning. I was going to suggest to the minister that we should pass a couple more items and then report progress. We have done a pretty good evening's work, we have passed nearly $8,000,000, and we do not want to work here so late every night. Will the minister be satisfied with that arrangement?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would be quite satisfied
to let the committee decide what is best to do. If I understand aright, my work was arranged for me for the day, and I was advised that I should present the estimates of the Department of Soldier's Civil Re-establishment and the Department of Health, and I was expected to take the whole day. We had a very extensive discussion on the Health estimates the other day, although they are not very large. My only desire is to advance the work of the session. We have covered a great many points, and the most important points in the Department of Soldier's Civil Re-establishment. The suggestion I make is that we pass all the estimates except one, then we can take up the Health estimates, and they will not take more than half an hour, perhaps only fifteen minutes, because all 'the particular items have been considered.


Robert James Manion: We have been very considerate in allowing the estimates to go through, because we have already passed about S8,000,000. In discussing the estimates of other departments we very often spend a whole evening on a small item. I was proposing that we pass a couple more items, and my hon friend behind me suggests that a number of these items are important. We have no intention of holding up the estimates, and when they come up later on we can put through a whole lot of them in short order; but it is getting very late and we have allowed a large amount of money to be voted. I was looking at some of the items for the other departments, and in some of the branches about half the items have been passed. The total amount of those estimates was about half a million dollars, but we debated them for days.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They are not important.
271*


Robert James Manion: That is one reason why we ought to take more time with my hon. friend's department. We do not mind the small vocational loans and employer's liability vote and so on, but I think we have to hold up one or two of the items.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Then we will skip the
Federal appeal board and pensions.


Robert James Manion: And that will enable us
to discuss all other items. I am not doing this to obstruct.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We will reserve the
Federal appeal board.


Robert James Manion: Suppose we hold over unemployment relief and the Federal appeal board, on the understanding that we may if we wish-though it is not likely that we will -take up any other subject when these two other items are being discussed; then we can pass the others. I think that will be treating the minister generously.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend will see
how generous I am also. I am willing to meet him halfway, and I think he should let me pass this item.


Robert James Manion: We never sit after eleven
o'clock Friday night.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend has a
holiday to-morrow, but I have not.


Robert James Manion: You have a holiday all
the time and nothing else.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister is
generous but he expects a lot. Unemployment relief and the Federal appeal board are new subjects.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We will reserve that.


Arthur Edward Ross: If the minister will answer a question or two, I would appreciate it. For instance, what is the item $5,000 for special publicity?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Advertising in the veteran papers about the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment and about the delays and when they expire for presenting claims for pensions, and all other claims-all the veteran papers.


Arthur Edward Ross: What papers are
they?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The Khaki Call, The Listening Post, Imperial Veteran, Manitoba Veteran, The Veteran, Canadian Review Company Limited, Labour Leader. This is a very reduced service now.
Supply-Re-establishment


Arthur Edward Ross: What is the operating expense?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The largest amount of the operating expense item is used to provide advances for treatment of imperial pensioners and allied country pensioners who are in Canada, we being the agent of the governments concerned. A large amount of this money that is provided is being reimbursed to the department. The other portion is used generally for:
Telephone, telegrams, postage and car fare.
Transportation and travelling of staff.
Stationery and office supplies.
Insurance and storage.
Light, heat, power and water rates.
Maintenance and repairs to furniture and equipment.
Freight and express.
Royal Commission on Pensions and Re-Establishment.
Other general expenses.
Working capital.
Financing treatment and medical examination of imperial and foreign former soldiers; also miscellaneous expense of Imperial pension office.
All of this is refunded, but it is refunded month by month, and we are generally a large amount behind. We have to provide the money. The main sum in this connection is spent on behalf of Imperial government.
Item 286 agreed to.


Robert James Manion: We are holding over 288
and 222.	,


Henri Sévérin Béland: The hon. member wants
to reserve the Federal appeal board item?


Robert James Manion: Yes, and the unemployment item.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Item 292 stands and 293 is carried. Now we can proceed with the other estimates. There is nothing contentious about them.


Robert James Manion: We agreed we would stop after having passed these estimates; if there is nothing contentious about them the minister will not have any trouble in getting them through later.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am afraid they will come up late in the session, and you will not have the same opportunity that you would have to-night. I know that the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) wants to ask a few questions regarding quarantine.


Robert James Manion: If the minister is so interested in getting this item through, I think we will have to go back and discuss some of the items we have carried.


John Livingstone Brown: While the minister is satisfied, the rest of us would like to proceed with some of the business of the House, if that is possible.
	<


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for Lis-gar might have said that before we made the arrangement.


John Livingstone Brown: The arrangement was to go on with the Health estimates. It was the Health estimates I was interested in.


Robert James Manion: The minister may take up any item he likes, but he will not get any of them through.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not think my hon. friend means that. He enjoys a good reputation in the House and he must not destroy it.


Robert James Manion: I am not afraid of that. I think my hon. friend is not fair. We made the arrangement and now he comes forward with a proposition to pass the Health estimates. That matter was not discussed.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Oh yes.


Robert James Manion: We had an understanding.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I said I would be perfectly willing to reserve one or two items, take the Health items which remain to be adopted and adopt them this evening after proper discussion, and I pointed out in this connection that the Health estimates have already been under consideration quite a long time in the House, and a tremendous amount of information has been supplied to the committee and properly so. The remaining Health department items are not nearly as important as those we have adopted. The only three items left include one very small amount, the quarantine item which we discussed very extensively the other day, but regarding which seme information could still be supplied, and the other one is venereal diseases, which is a grant.


Mr. LEWTS:: We have been getting along very nicely, and rather than disturb the House at this time, I think the minister would be well advised, if the arrangement was entered into, to let the. House adjourn at eleven o'clock. We have put through estimates totalling nearly $8,000,000 to-night, and although I would like to see the Health estimates get through to-night, there is one item, venereal diseases, that might involve a general discussion.


Harold Putnam: Did the hon. gentleman
say "if an arrangement was entered into"?


Arthur John Lewis: A few moments ago we allowed about five items to go through without discussion. Possibly that may have been the general understanding, and while that may have been a misunderstanding, it seems to have been the understanding of the hon.

Business oj the House
member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion).


Harold Putnam: The hon. member gave
very fatherly advice to the minister when he said he would be well advised, if such an arrangement were entered into, to let the House adjourn. Does he understand the import of that particular remark? It was a little too fatherly altogether.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Monday, June 15, 1925