1931-05-18

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :: I should like to ask the Superintendent
General of Indian Affairs if he has received a request from the Minister of Finance of British Columbia asking for permission to assess Indians employed in industry in that province a special 1 per cent duty.


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):: No such request has been brought to my notice.
PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES On the orders of the day:


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I
should like to repeat the question I asked the

167S
Unemployment at Churchill

Minister of Pensions and National Health the other day as to whether or not it is proposed at this session to 'bring down legislation amending the Pension Act.


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: This matter
is now under consideration.



UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Railways and Canals. I have before me a despatch appearing in a morning newspaper, entitled Eastern workers go to Churchill.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Why cannot the hon.
member ask his question? There is no necessity for reading this article.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I am laying the foundation for the question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Ask the question and be done with it. There is no need to read anything.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: All right. If it comes
to a matter of asking a question, I can soon do that. The question is this: Is it true that workers from eastern Canada are being sent to Churchill? This article states that unemployed men paraded at the Pas as a demonstration against eastern workers being sent to that part of Manitoba. I should like to know if that has been done, because this is a question of interest to the whole of western Canada.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I am rather glad the hon. member has brought up this question, because during the last few hours I have been inundated with this statement from various people in the west. I see according to one newspaper sent me that Premier Bracken made the statement that large numbers of men were being taken to Churchill from the east, and the mayor of The Pas is reported to have made a similar statement. I was looking into the matter, without knowing anyone was going to bring it up, so I think I can give a fairly intelligent answer.
The number of men taken to Churchill as working on the line from The Pas to Churchill amounts to approximately one thousand, but of that number about one half are men who have been in there for a number of

years, who have some special qualifications and who have been reemployed. In round figures, some four hundred men I am informed have been taken from The Pas, or about a third of the total number employed. The men taken from other sections of the country, and certainly those taken from the east, with very rare exceptions, were men who had been there in previous years and who had some special qualifications. There were some men taken from Renfrew county, men who have been there for a number of years. They are called adze men; they have special qualifications for working timber. Other men were taken from the maritime provinces; they were steamship men, who have been there for some years. I do not think the numbers of these men have been increased.
With regard to The Pas, there is no doubt that many men went there looking for work this year. I am informed by people in the west that hundreds of men vrent to The Pas on freight trains and in other ways, in the hope of getting work. Of course it is impossible for the Department of Railways and Canals to supply work for all these men. They went in on their own. responsibility, and we have taken as many as we can take. Probably 90 per cent of all the employees on the line from The Pas to Churchill and at Churchill have been taken from Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and I think that is a very fair proportion.
There may be very good arguments advanced in support of the contention that men should not be brought from other sections of Canada, but only those men who have special training or who had previous knowledge of the work were taken from other parts of the country, and their numbers are very small. I think it well that this fact should be made known to the people of western Canada. I can assure my hon. friend and the country that The Pas and western Canada have been treated very fairly in this matter. It may be pointed out that Winnipeg, for instance, has thousands of men unemployed. We did take perhaps 150 men from Winnipeg, but surely that city has some right to be considered. There were a few men taken from Regina, a few from Selkirk and a few from various other sections, and I may say that I was approached from all over western Canada, asking me for positions at Churchill. I suppose for each position we had to offer there were from ten to twenty applications.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Do I understand from the minister that only 10 per cent of the men have come from the east and that these men are all specialists in their work?

Questions


Robert James Manion: That is correct. Those
men were brought from different parts of the east; some were brought from the maritime provinces and a few came from around Port Colborne. Some of them came from the maritime provinces, some from the town of Port Colborne, and a few from Renfrew county, but they were all men with special training.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct
the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to a despatch from the staff representative of the paper Labour in Washington, dated May 19, as follows:
Canada will reply in June to the American note asking if this country is prepared to go ahead in the near future with the development of the St. Lawrence waterway. It will say that the Dominion is favourable to the improvement provided satisfactory joint financial arrangements can be made but will state that there need be no-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I will ask that the hon.
member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) direct his question to the government. What happens to be published in some foreign newspaper is of no particular interest to the house and does not necessarily form a basis for a question. If the hon. member has a question to ask which is of interest to the country and to this house, he can ask it without reading from a foreign newspaper.


Peter Heenan: Would the Prime Minister advise the house if the report is correct that the Dominion of Canada will answer the note from Washington to the effect that there is no need to start the development of this waterway before one year.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge
of the communication to which the hon. member refers, nor as to who inspired it; it is without authenticity so far as the government is concerned.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Has the right hon. the Prime Minister, received the departmental report of the investigation regarding Beauharnois which he mentioned at the special session as having been undertaken by him?
2.	If such a report has been received, will he table it?
3.	Have plans for remedial works of the Beauharnois development been filed and approved by the government?
4.	Are the plans under which the Beauharnois development is now being proceeded with the same plans which were approved by order in council, P.C. 422, dated May 8, 1929?
5.	If the present plans are not the same as above approved, have they been approved, and if so, how and when?
6.	If any change has been made in these plans, what are the changes and why were such changes made?
7.	Has the program of construction provided for in condition No. 12 of the order in council No. P.C. 422 of March 8, 1929, been submitted and approved by the minister?
8.	If so submitted and approved, will the government table a copy?
9.	If not submitted and approved, when will the government require its submission?
10.	Have the engineer or engineers referred to in condition No. 14 of the said order in council been appointed by the government, if so. when and what are their names, what are their duties in respect to: (a) the canal; (b) works to be constructed in the St. Lawrence river ?
11.	Why were fixed spans permitted as set out in condition No. 10 of said order in council if the canal is to be used for navigation purposes?
12.	(a) Has the province of Quebec executed and the Dominion government accepted the agreement referred to in condition No. 24; (b) if this agreement has been executed and accepted, will the government table a copy?
13.	(a) Have the plan and detailed construction provided for in condition No. 11 of said order in council been submitted and approved of by the minister; (b) if so approved, will the government table a copy?
14.	Will the government procure from the Beauharnois Power Corporation Limited (a Dominion company) and table the list of shareholders of said corporation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would
ask that questions numbers 1 and 2 be allowed to stand as the engineers of the department are having some difficulty in understanding them. An endeavour will be made to work out a satisfactory answer.
Questions stand.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EMPLOYEES, GASPE RAILWAY
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	What are the names of the eight employees of the Canadian National Railways main line who have been appointed to positions on the Gaspe railway, at what stations are they located and what is their salary?
2.	Are any of former employees still in the employ of the Canadian National Railways, who are they, what position do they fill and what is their salary?
16S0
Questions


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Stanislas Lemieux, Nouvelle Station, 14.70 per day; J. M. Trottier, Perce, $127 per month; P. Columbe, Bonaventure, $127 per month; 'F. McDonald, Matapedia, 72 cents per hour; N. Methot, Gaspe, 72 cents per hour; P. Allen, New Carlisle, $190 per month; W. Ward, New Carlisle, 46 cents per hour; P. Mercier, New Carlisle, 55 cens per hour.
2.	No; for the following reasons: Stanislas Lemieux replaced a deceased section foreman.
J.	M. Trottier replaced an agent dismissed for irregularities. P. Columbe replaced an agent dismissed for irregularities. F. McDonald replaced a car cleaner laid off account inability to perform work of joint carman and car cleaner, and not qualified for other employment. N. Methot replaced a pensioned carman. P. Allen replaced a carman laid off account being unable to perform work. W. Ward displaced a junior fuel man, New Carlisle. Ward has since been laid off himself account reduction in staff. Former employee still holds seniority on that superintendent's division. P. Mercier is filling new position of stores issuer and did not displace any former Gaspe lines employee.
NET DEBT OF CANADA*


Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	What was the net debt of Canada at the end of the financial year 1921?
2.	What was the net debt of Canada at the end of the financial year 1930?
3.	What was the net debt of Canada at the end of the financial year 1931?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, answers to questions such as this should be a reference to the public accounts. I think that would be the proper way of answering and would not be discourteous to hon. members of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The answer is that the hon. member should refer to the public accounts.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: That is not the politest way of answering.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not?


HON. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	How long did the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux act as Speaker of the House of Commons?
2.	What was the total sum of money received by him during his term of office, (a) as member of the House of Commons; (b) Speaker; (c) all other contingent expenses, allowances, servants' salaries, cost and maintenance of automobiles, chauffeur's salary, telephone and telegraph charges, printing, etc?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	The Hon. R. Lemieux acted as Speaker of the House of Commons for 8i years. Noon March 8, 1922, to Noon September 8, 1930.
2. (a) Indemnity	$ 36,000	00(b) Speaker's salary.. ..	51,004	044c) Contingent expenses.	5,510	56Allowance in lieu of	residence	25,402	02Servants' salaries. ..	33,430	18Cost of maintenance	of automobiles.. ..	6,407	79Chauffeur's salary. ..	15,242	(10Telephone and tele-	graph charges.. ..	3,714	48Printing, etc	nil	Total	$176,711	07


HON. SENATOR DANDURAND
Mr. LAFLECHE:: What is the total sum of money received from all government sources by the hon. Senator Dandurand from the year 1921 to March 31, 1931?


Mr. CAHAN:: [DOT]
Payments made to Senator Dandurand as a delegate to the League of Nations:
1921-	22-No payments made.
1922-	23-No payments made.
1923-	24-No payments made.
1924-	25-Travelling expenses-5th Assembly, League of Nations,	
S 3,1301925-	26-Travelling expenses-Special Assembly	
1,3801925-26-Travelling expenses-6th Assembly	
(Delegation expenses-including Senator Dandurand, Senator Bostock, Mr. Roy, Dr. Riddell-$7,629.07).
1926-	27-No payments made.
1927-	28-Travelling expenses-8th Assembly	 3,108
Travelling expenses-48th Council Meeting	 2,121
Travelling expenses-49th Council Meeting	[DOT]	1,100

Questions
1928-	29-Travelling expenses-9th Assembly and 51st and 52nd Council
Meetings		2,400
Travelling expenses-53rd	Council	Meeting	
1,260Travelling expenses-54th	Council	Meeting	
1,3501929-	30-Travelling expenses-55th Council Meeting	
1,700
Travelling expenses-10th Assembly and 56th and 57th Council
Meetings	 2,500
Travelling expenses-58th	Council	Meeting	
1,3001930-	31-Travelling expenses-59th Council Meeting	
1,300Total	
$22,649Sessional indemnity as a senator	
44,775Total	
567,424
This total does not include amount for 1925-26 (6th Assembly).


PENSIONS TO EX-SERVICE MEN
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	What was the total amount disbursed in pensions to ex-service men from October 1, 1930,
* to date ?
2.	What was the total cost of administration of the pension board tribunals, courts and bureaus dealing with ex-service men from the first of October, 1930, to date?
3.	What was the number of applications for pensions heard from October 1. 1930. to date?
4.	How many such applications have been disposed of?
5.	In how many cases have pensions been granted?
6.	In how many cases have pensions been refused?
7.	How many applications are now pending before the pensions tribunal?
8.	In the opinion of the Department of Pensions and National Health, approximately what length of time must elapse before the cases now pending are disposed of?
Mr. MaeLAREN:
1.	$27,983,835.23.
2.	$229,076.39.
3.	By the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, 22,383; by the pension tribunal, 1,735; by the pension appeal court, 343.
4.	By the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada. The board have disposed, as far as their jurisdiction is concerned, of all claims. The number of claims which are held for reference to the pension tribunal, pending a decision as to their jurisdiction, is 777; by the pension tribunal, 1,536; by the pension appeal court. 343.
5.	By the Board of Pension Commissioners, 4,762; by the pension tribunal (subject to appeal), 707; by the pension appeal court, 69.
6.	By the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, none; by the pension tribunal, 829; by the pension appeal court, 220.
7.	1,200.
8.	No answer.
Note.-The figures quoted in answer to question No. 2 are to March 31, 1931, all others are to April 30, 1931.


ROUYN MINES RAILWAY COMPANY
Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	(a) What was the total par value of bonds authorized to be issued by the Rouyn Mines Railway Company; (b) what was the amount of such bonds actually issued, with the date of maturity and the rate of interest thereon; (c) were such bonds guaranteed as to principal and interest by the government of Canada or the Canadian National railway company ?
2.	(a) Was the Rouyn Mines railway constructed under the direct supervision and direction of the Canadian National railway company or by the Rouyn Mines Railway Company as such: (b) was the work done by contract after tenders were properly advertised and received; (c) what was the amount of the contract price?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	(a) $5,000,000. The Rouyn Railway Company is now called the National Transcontinental Branch Lines Company; (b) $3,306,000 first mortgage 4( per cent thirty years sinking fund gold bonds maturing October 1, 1955; (c) The Dominion of Canada covenants, as lessee, to pay to the trustee under the mortgage rentals sufficient to meet total interest and sinking fund requirements. The mortgage provides for a sinking fund sufficient to retire the entire issue by maturity, payable in equal semi-annual instalments.
2.	(a) The Rouyn Mines Railway Company was constructed by the Rouyn Mines Railway Company as such. The chief engineer, construction department, Canadian National Railways, was appointed chief engineer of the Rouyn Mines Railway, and the line was constructed under his supervision; (b) yes; (c) Contract was at unit prices on approximate quantities.
Questions

Amount paid contractors:
Tasehereau-Noranda	
81,702,186	16Waite-Montgomery branch.. 141,061 45 Amulet spur	
64,337	72Total	
81,907,585 33


ST. BENOIT DE MATAPEDIA, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has an investigation been held lately at the post office of St. Benoit de Matapedia, Quebec, by whom, and with what result?
2.	In case an investigation was held, who made the complaint, and what was the nature of the complaint?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes, by commissioner Gerard Simard, who found that the complaints made against the postmaster were founded.
2.	Affidavits were received from Messrs. Ignace Gallant and Alexis P. Arsenault to the effect that the postmaster had taken an active part in the last federal election.


ST. SIMEON DE BONAVENTURE, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is there a vacancy for postmastership at St. Simeon de Bonaventure, Quebec?
2.	Has a temporary appointment been made, who has been appointed and on whose recommendation?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. Lazare Poirier, recommended by E. A. D. Morgan and hon. Doctor E. Paquet.


PASPEBIAC, QUE., CUSTOMS AND EXCISE COLLECTOR
Mr. MARCIL:: Is there a vacancy for the position of collector of customs and excise at Paspebiae, Quebec, and how was the vacancy brought about ?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The present collector is being superannuated as from the 22nd of August, 1931, and the Civil Service Commission has been requested to appoint a successor.


CARLETON, QUE., WHARF
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who is supervising the work of the extension of the wharf at Carleton, Quebec?
2.	When will the permanent appointment be made ?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Louis LeBlanc.
2.	Applications sent to Civil Service Commission on May 8, 1931.


CARLETON, QUE., LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is there a vacancy in the position of keeper of the lighthouse at Carleton, Quebec, and how has it been brought about?
2.	Who is in charge of the lighthouse, and on whose recommendation has the appointment been made?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes, by the dismissal of the keeper.
2.	Henri Joseph Edouard Martin has been placed in temporary charge, by direction of the Minister of Marine, pending a permanent appointment by the Civil Service Commission.


NEWSPAPER MAIL RATE
Mr. CHAPLIN:: 1.	What is the rate paid by newspapers for the service of carrying newspapers through the mails?
2.	What was the quantity (by weight) of newspapers carried during the past fiscal year at the special rate at present in force?
3.	What was the approximate cost to the government of carrying these newspapers?
4.	What amount was received for the service?
5.	What was the net cost to the country?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Statutory rate is 1 cent per pound.
2.	Approximately 100,000,000 pounds carried at statutory rate.
3.	Exact figures as to cost of carrying newspapers not available as it is not practicable to keep cost of handling newspapers separate from cost of handling other classes mail matter, 'but according to special statistics taken a few years ago the cost of handling newspapers mailed by publishers at the statutory rate of 1 cent per pound is now approximately 86,325,000.
4.	Approximately $1,000,000.
5.	$5,325,000.



STE. SCHOLASTIQUE, QUE., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Who at present has the contract for carrying the mail between the post office of Ste. Scholastique, Quebec, and the railway station?
2.	On what condition was said contract awarded, and on whose recommendation?
3.	Who was holding this contract before July 28, 1930?
4.	On what condition was he holding same?
5.	Was said contract cancelled from the previous holder, and if so. for what reason?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Henri Lahaie.
2.	At existing rate of payment, viz., $200 per annum, on recommendation of the Postmaster General.

Questions
3.	O. Legault.
4.	Under a four years' contract at $200 per annum, due to expire on December 31, 1930.
5.	No. Contract expired on December 31, 1930.



FEDERAL CHARTERS

Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many companies have been incorporated by the Department of State and have secured federal charters: (a) in 1921; (b) in 1926: and (c) in 1930?
2.	What was the revenue of the companies branch: (a) in 1921; (b) in 1926; and (c) in 1930?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	(a) 852, fiscal year ended March 31, 1921;
(b)	801, fiscal year ended March 31, 1926;
(c)	1,280, fiscal year ended March 31, 1930.
2.	(a) $445,531.70, fiscal year ended March 31, 1921; (b) $28S,655.56, fiscal year ended March 31, 1926; (c) $651,240.54, fiscal year ended March 31, 1930.



DUTY ON MATCHES

Mr. RAYMOND:: What is the duty imposed on matches imported to Canada?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Paper matches: British preferential tariff, 221 per cent less 10 per cent; Favoured nations, 32i per cent less 10 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 32i per cent; General tariff, 35 per cent.
Wooden matches: British preferential tariff, 171 per cent less 10 per cent; Favoured nations, 221 per cent less 10 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 221 per cent; General tariff, 25 per cent.
Wax matches: British preferential tariff, 15 per cent; Favoured nations, 17i per cent less 10 per cent; Intermediate tariff, 171 per cent; General tariff, 174 per cent.



BREAKWATER CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

Mr. RALSTON:: What were the unit prices in the following contracts:	(1) Cbarlo cove, construction of
breakwater extension (Wilfred M. Gerroir), June 25, 1929; (2) Meteghan, construction of extension to breakwater (Comeau, Gaudet, Comeau), August 8, 1929?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Cribwork, 14 cents per cubic foot; 5 inch sheeting, $75 per M.FJ3.M.
2.	Cribwork in place full ballasted and sheathed, etc., 13& cents per cubic foot.



POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP INQUIRIES

Mr. PARENT:: 1.	How many inquiries were held since October 1,	1930, following complaints of
political partisanship against postmasters in the county of Terrebonne, Quebec?
2.	What are the names and addresses of postmasters against whom complaints were made justifying an inquiry?
3.	What is the name, address, and occupation of the inquiry commissioner in each case?
4.	What was the decision rendered in each inquiry ?
5.	How many postmasters in the county of Terrebonne were dismissed as a result of said inquiries since October 1, 1930, and what are their names and addresses?
6.	What were the costs, fees and other expenses sustained by the government for each of said inquiries?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Three.
2.	Joseph Coupal, Brebeuf; J. L. Dumouchel, Ste. Adele en bas; Isaie Deschamps, Val David.
3.	Leopold Nantel, barrister, St. Jerome, P.Q.
4.	Postmaster guilty of political partisanship.
5.	No dismissals effected.
6.	Brebeuf, $51; Ste. Adele en bas, $37.30; Val David, $3520.



MARINE DEPARTMENT REPORT-FRENCH EDITION

Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	Does the distribution office keep a record or daily book of the various departmental reports laid on the table of the House of Commons, in which is entered the date on which these reports are received for distribution to the members?
2.	Does said record show the day and the hour on which the French copy of the 63rd annual report of the Minister of Marine, laid on the table of the House of Commons on March 23. 1931, was received by the distribution office?
3.	If so, on what day and at what time of the day was the French copy of the 63rd annual report of the Minister of Marine, laid on the table of the House of Commons on March 23, 1931, received by the distribution office of the House of Commons?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Received 11.10 a.m., Monday, May 11, 1931.



ILE AUX COUDRES PIER, QUE., LIGHTKEEPER

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Who was appointed lightkeeper of the lighthouse known as He aux Coudres Pier, in the county of Charlevoix?
2.	By whom was he recommended?
3.	Did he pass the examinations of the Civil Service Commission?
4.	What is the salary of said lighthouse
keeper?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1. Joseph Pedneault.
2 and 3. He was appointed by the Civil Service Commission.
Questions

4.	Minimum 81,800; maximum $1,980 per annum, out of which salary he is required to provide for one assistant.



PUBLIC WORKS, POINTE AU PIC, QUE., SUPERINTENDENT

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that Mr. Joseph Forgues was appointed superintendent of public works at Pointe-au-Pic, in the county of Charlevoix, to replace Mr. Joseph Villeneuve?
2.	If so, by whom was Mr. Forgues recommended ?
3.	When did he commence work?
4.	Was he appointed after passing the examinations of the Civil Service Commission?
5.	What is his salary?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1. No.
2 to 5. Answered by No. 1.



CAP BRULE, QUE., LIGHTKEEPER

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that the position of lighthouse keeper at Cap Brule, in the county of Montmorency, is vacant?
2.	If so, why was the former lighthouse keeper dismissed?
3.	Were complaints made against him?
4.	If so, what are said complaints and by whom were they made?
5.	What is the name of the present lighthouse keeper at Cap Brule?
6.	By whom was he recommended?
7.	Did the person appointed pass the examinations of the Civil Service Commission?
8.	What is the salary of said lighthouse keeper ?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1, 2, 3, and 4. August Lavoie, lightkeeper at Cap Brule, reached the age of 71 years on 7th May, 1931, and arrangements are under way to retire him under the Civil Service Superannuation Aot, 1924.
5,	6 and 7. Gedeon Bouchard is in temporary charge, pending a permanent appointment by the Civil Service Commission.
8. Minimum $1,020; maximum $1,110 per annum.



NEWSPAPERS CARRIED THROUGH MAILS

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What is the total number of pounds of newspapers carried through the mails during each of the years 1928, 1929, and 1930?
2.	What is the total cost of carrying these newspapers in each of the years mentioned?
3.	What is the total amount of money paid to the Dominion government in each of these years for this service?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1. 103,596,100 pounds, 108,208,400 pounds, and 105,954.900 pounds respectively at statutory rate of lc. per pound.

2.	Exact figures as to the cost of carrying newspapers not available as it is not practicable to keep cost of handling newspapers separate from cost of handling other classes mail matter, but according to special statistics taken a few years ago the cost of handling newspapers mailed by publishers at the statutory rate of lc. per pound is now approximately $6,325,000.
3.	$1,035,961, $1,082,084, $1,059,549, respectively, at statutory rate of lc. per pound.



BANC BRULE, QUE., LIGHTKEEPER

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that a lighthouse keeper was recently appointed as caretaker of the Banc Brule lighthouse in the county of Montmorency ?
2.	By whom was he recommended?
3.	Did the new appointee pass the examinations of the Civil Service Commission?
4.	What is the salary of said lighthouse
keeper ?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	and 3. He was appointed by the Civil Service Commission.
4.	Minimum $2,100; maximum $2,280 per annum, out of which salary the keeper is required to provide for two assistants.



BUTTER IMPORTS

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many pounds of butter were imported to Canada from Australia, through the harbour of Vancouver, from August 1, 1930, to date?
2.	What was the duty, if any, paid on such butter entering Canada as above mentioned?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Australian butter landed Vancouver August 1, 1930, to May 16, 1931, 1,416,352 pounds.
2.	$14,163.52.



MAISONNEUVE, QUE., CITY HALL BUILDING

Mr. ROBITAILLE:: 1.	Was the government supposed to take possession of the old city hall building of Maisonneuve for use as a post office, if so, when?
2.	Did it not take possession of same, and why?
3.	When will the government take possession?
4.	Will this building be remodelled so as to be used as a post office?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1. The old city hall building, Maisonneuve, was purchased by the government from the city of Montreal, January 15, 1929. At that time the radium institute of the province of Quebec was occupying the building. The city

Questions
of Montreal was required under its charter to obtain the approval of the provincial government of Quebec to the sale. In passing the Act of Approval the provincial government added a clause that the radium institute for which the province has to provide premises, should have two years to move from their present place. The period mentioned in the Quebec Act expired January 15, 1931. This date at the request of Premier Taschereau on June 18, 1930, was extended to May 1, 1931. Premier Taschereau again writes on the 16th May, 1931, as follows:-"We are in a very difficult position in regard to our radium institute. It is the only one in the province and we had expected to have it removed to the new building of the University of Montreal. Unfortunately it is not advanced enough to receive the institute and unless you are good enough to grant us an extension of our occupancy of the building until the university is completed the institute will have to be closed. Thousands are receiving treatment for cancer and it would be most unfortunate if the treatments would have to be discontinued. May I be permitted to appeal to your good-will to grant us an extension".
In reply it has been pointed out that this situation cannot be prolonged indefinitely and request has been made that the province fix a definite date when the new university building will be ready to receive the radium institute.
2 and 3. Answer by No. 1.
4.	Appropriation of $25,000 in current year's estimates to fit up building for postal purposes.



ROSEMONT, MONTREAL, POST OFFICE

Mr. ROBITAILLE:: 1.	W'ill the government establish a post
office at Rosemont, Montreal, during the fiscal year 1931-32?	'
2.	If so: (a) when; (b) will a building be erected for this purpose; or (e) will a building be bought or rented?
3.	If not: (a) why; (b) when does the government intend to establish a post office at Rosemont, Montreal?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	The establishment depends on the needs of the service. There is nio need for a postal station at present.
2.	The accommodation to be provided will depend on conditions at the time when the establishment becomes necessary.
3.	See answers to 1 and 2.



LA MALBAIE, QUE., EXPERIMENTAL STATION

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1. Is the government aware that the experimental station conducted by the federal Department of Agriculture, located at La Malbaie, district of Riviere Mailloux, under the supervision of Mr. Rene Villeneuve, has been moved to another location?
2.	If so, why was this change made?
3.	Had complaints been made against Mr. Rene villeneuve regarding the way thi9 station was being conducted, and if so, what was the nature of said complaints, and by wffiom were they made?
4.	Who replaced Mr. Villeneuve as superintendent of said experimental station?
5.	By whom was he recommended?
6.	What is the salary of the superintendent of the said experimental station?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	No experimental station is conducted by the federal government at La Malbaie, Quebec.
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. Answered by No. 1.



DISMISSAL OF MR. PIERRE TRUDEL

Mr. DESROCHERS:: 1.	Was Pierre Trudel, an employee of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, Quebec agency, recently dismissed from the service?
2.	If so, on what grounds, and on whose recommendation ?
3.	Was the dismissal as the result of an inquiry ?
4.	Before -taking action did the government give consideration to the fact that Mr. Trudel had given twenty years' faithful service to the department ?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Dismissed by order in council dated 21st March, 1931, as the result of charges of political partisanship made by Mr. Charles N. Dorion, M.P.
3.	No.
4.	No.



ST. SULPICE, ICEBREAKER

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Was Mr. Mederic Lacombe, who was acting as superintendent of the works for the erection of an icebreaker at St. Sulpice, Quebec, from August 18 to September 15, 1930, dismissed from his duties?
2.	If so, at whose request?
3.	Were complaints made against him, and if so, by whom?
4.	Who asked for the appointment of Mr. J. E. Roibdtaille, his substitute?
5.	Were complaints made against this appointment, and if so, by whom?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Engineer in charge of work.
3.	(a) Yes; (b) Engineer in charge of work.
4.	District engineer.
5.	No.
16S6	COMMONS
Questions as Orders for Returns



BONAVENTURE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is the Postmaster General aware of the death of Charles F. Forest, for many years postmaster at Bonaventure, Quebec, whose dismissal had been authorized by council but which had not yet been effected at the time of his death ?
2.	Is it the intention of the department to appoint the widow of the late postmaster, who has been temporarily acting as assistant for many years?
3.	Was any complaint made against this office while Mr. Forest was postmaster?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Permanent appointment will rest with Civil Service Commission.
3.	No complaints received against management.



LITTLE CASCAPEDIA POST OFFICE

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has a temporary appointment been made to Little Caseapedia post office, county of Bonaventure?
2.	If so, on whose recommendation and who has been appointed?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to Question No. 1.



BUTTER IMPORTS

Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	How many pounds of butter w-ere im-. ported to Canada from February 1, 1931, to May 1, 1931?
2.	What quantity came from New Zealand?
3.	What quantity from Australia?
4.	What duties were collected per pound?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: 1	and 4. Total imports of butter from all countries entered for consumption in Canada: February 1 to April 30, 1931, 2,147,494 pounds. Rates of duty collected: 8,462 pounds at 14 cents per pound; 57,176 pounds at 12 cents per pound; 398,440 pounds at 8 cents per pound, less 10 per cent; 1,683,416 pounds at one cent per pound.
2	and 4. Imports from New Zealand entered for consumption in Canada: 286,440 pounds all at 8 cents per pound, less 10 per cent.
3	and 4. Imports from Australia entered for consumption in Canada: 1,683,416 pounds, all at 1 cent per pound.



CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION

Mr. RINFRET:: 1. How many certificates of naturalization were granted according to section 4 of The Naturalization Act, during the year 1930?

2. How many certificates were granted according to section 6 of the same act, during 1930?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Certificates issued under section 4, 10,307.
2.	Certificates issued under section 8, 587.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GOBEIL:: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed in Canada from January 1, 1922, to August 4, 1930, and how many for each year?
2.	How many by counties were dismissed during the above-mentioned period?


POPULATION OF CANADA
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	What is according to the best available information the present population of Canada?
2.	How many people in Canada are now drawing pensions, either war pensions, old age pensions or any other form of retiring pensions, grants or annuities, from the state?
3.	What is the total amount of such pensions paid in Canada during 1930?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is
obvious that only a very limited amount of the information asked for is available so far as the Dominion government is concerned. Efforts will be made to secure the necessary information, but in the meantime this question will have to stand as an order for return. It may be very difficult to answer some of the questions.


INTEREST ON LOANS
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	What is the sum of interest paid by the government of Canada for the years 1928 and 1929, respectively, on account of loans effected by the issuance of bonds subject to income taxation?
2.	For what portion of these various loans did the government issue bonds payable to bearer?
3.	For what portion of said various loans did the government issue bonds entirely nominative ?
4.	According to reports made to the Minister of National Revenue regarding income taxation for the years 1928 and 1929, respectively, what is the total amount of incomes derived from the interests on said bonds so issued, and subject to income taxation?
5.	What is the total amount of taxation received by the Department of National Revenue during the years 1928 and 1929, respectively, on account of interests received by the holders of these bonds, issued by the government, and subject to income taxation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this question, as well as another one asked by the hon. member, involves an enormous amount of work. For instance, the second question is:

Unopposed Motions jor Papers
For what portion of these various loans did the government issue bonds payable to bearer?
To answer this question would entail tremendous work on the part of the department, and it should stand as an order for return.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Question stands as order for return. Shall [DOT] the other question stand as an order for return?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, just this particular
one.


MR. OSCAR DROOTN
Mr. DORION:: 1.	Did Mr. Oscar Drouin, of the city of Quebec, from December 29, 1921, to August 1, 1930, conduct any inquiries for the Post Office Department, and if so, what inquiries were held, and what was the amount paid to him?
2.	How many postmasters were found guilty through inquiries made by him?


MR. WILFRID STB. MARIE
Mr. DORION:: 1.	Did Mr. Wilfrid Ste. Marie, lawyer of Hull. Quebec, from December 29, 1921, to August 1, 1930, hold inquiries for the Post Office Department, and if so, what number were held and where, and what amount was paid to him for said inquiries?
2.	How many unfavourable reports were made against postmasters, and how many of them were found guilty through the inquiries so held?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Peter Heenan: For a copy of all documents, letters and correspondence, in the possession of the government or any member thereof, in connection with the contract for carrying mail between the railway station and the post office at Dryden, Ontario, from August 1, 1930.
dismissal of m;r. isaie deschamps


Mr. PARENT:: For a copy of all orders in council, documents, correspondence, memoranda, in connection with the dismissal of Isaie Deschamps as postmaster at Val David, county of Terre; bonne, Quebec, together with all reports of proceedings of any inquiry or investigation made into the conduct of the said postmaster since January 1, 1931.



ST. SULPICE ICEBREAKER CONSTRUCTION FOREMAN

Mr. SEGUIN:: For a copy of all documents, letters, correspondence, complaints and recommendations regarding the appointment of Mr. Med eric Lacombe as foreman of the works for the construction of an icebreaker at St. Sulpice, in 1930, and his replacement by Mr. J. E. Robitaille.



ST. TITE DES CAPS RURAL MAIL SERVICE

Charles Gavan Power: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, requests and other documents, exchanged to date between the Postmaster General, the officers of his department at Ottawa and Quebec, and the citizens of St. Tite des Caps, county of Montmorency, regarding the establishment of a rural mail service, known as rural route No. 1, in the parish of St. Tite des Caps; also a return showing list of tenderers and the amount of tenders in each case, in connection with the said service.



FIXING OF WHEAT PRICES

Mr. MOTHERWELL:: For a copy of all correspondence and other communications between the hon. Sir George Foster, then Minister of Trade and Commerce, in ]91G and 1917, or any of his departmental officials or colleagues, and officers of the Canadian Council of Agriculture or any other farm organization functioning on the prairie provinces, with respect to the fixing of wheat prices in Canada, in order to avert, if possible, wild and speculative food prices prevailing during war times.



ST. EUGENE POST OFFICE

Mr. FAFARD:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports, requests and other documents, exchanged between the Post Office Department and any other person or persons, since July 29, 1930, with reference to the post office of St. Eugene, in the county of L'lslet, Quebec?



L'lSLET STATION POST OFFICE

Joseph-Fernand Fafard: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports, requests and other documents, exchanged between the Post Office Department and any other person or persons, since July 29, 1930, with reference to the post office of L'lslet station, in the county of L'lslet, Quebec.



MEDICAL EXAMINER OF PILOTS

Charles Gavan Power: For a copy of all correspondence, applications, reports, memoranda and recommendations in the possession of the Department of Marine or any of the ministers of the present government, relating to the employment by the Department of Marine as medical examiner of pilots for the district of Quebec, of Dr. L. A. Dussault.


Alfred Duranleau: I want to draw the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that a similar motion was adopted in April last as will be seen by a reference to page 862 of Hansard, except that to the present motion my hon. friend is adding the words:
Or any of the ministers of the present government.

Unopposed Motions for Papers
I have no objection to the passing of this motion if it reads-
For a copy of all correspondence, applications, reports, memoranda and recommendations in the possession of any department of the present government except the Marine department.
-because the Marine department has already brought down what it has in its possession.


Charles Gavan Power: The Minister of Marine
probably misunderstood the purport of the order. The order to which he refers, which was granted previously and in response to which documents were brought down, asked for documents relating to the dismissal of Doctor Vaillancourt and the appointment of Doctor Dussault in his stead. In the present motion the request is only for a copy of all correspondence, reports and recommendations in the possession of the Department of Marine or any of the ministers of the present government relating to the appointment of Doctor Dussault. This is quite different from the former order. No doubt in the Department of Marine and Fisheries there will be found correspondence and recommendations, with respect to Doctor Dussault, and possibly some of the other members of the government have such recommendations.


Alfred Duranleau: In accordance with
the former motion adopted we had to bring down any documents concerning the dismissal, if you call it such, of Doctor Vaillancourt, and the appointment of Doctor Dussault, and we have complied in each case in so far as we have documents of that nature.


Charles Gavan Power: In the motion which is
now before the house, a request is made for applications for and recommendations to the position now occupied by Doctor Dussault. I do not think that was included in the former order to which the minister refers. I shall, however, be quite satisfied if the minister brings down whatever information he has.


Alfred Duranleau: If I have anything
else I shall bring it down, but I think the motion should be amended to include all the departments except the Marine department.


Charles Gavan Power: No; I am asking from the
Marine department certain things which were not asked for in the other order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister said he
would bring them down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this-house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of carrying into effect the decision of parliament made on the 3rd March, 1930, to make grants to the provinces equal to one-third of cost of establishing, and to cover permanently, such full time health units as may be organized.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, a year ago I had
the pleasure of introducing in this house a resolution somewhat similar to the one we are considering to-day. That resolution read:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of making grants to the provinces equal to one-third the cost of establishing, and to cover permanently, such full time health units as may be organized.
During the discussion, which I am glad to say was participated in by hon. members from various parts of the house, every one of the seventeen members who took part was favourable to the resolution, and the result was that the house unanimously endorsed the principle. The question might well be asked: If that were the case last year, why bring a similar motion to the house again this year? I do so for the simple reason that since that time we have had a change of government, and although the members of the present government were very sympathetic to the resolution I introduced a year ago when they were in opposition, I thought it just as well to test out their opinion now that they are in office.
To-day, both in provincial and federal legislation, we are giving consideration to many things that were at one time left to the individual. One of those subjects of course, is that of education. We realized that education is a national asset, and we make it compulsory that alb boys and girls shall devote so many years of their lives to acquiring an education of some sort. We are now more and more coming to the opinion, generally speaking, that health should be put on exactly the same basis as education, that the health of the nation is a national asset, and that its care cannot be left entirely, as has been too much the case in the past, to the individual. In world competition to-day an unhealthy nation can no more compete against a healthy nation than can an ignorant nation stand up against a well-educated one. It is with that idea in mind that I am bringing forward this resolution in the hope that the government will

National Health
' look upon it as sympathetically to-day as they did when in opposition and assist in carrying out the proposals that I am putting forward.
Speaking in support of a resolution with regard to health some weeks ago, I mentioned that to-day the health of a man and his family is governed practically by the length of his purse, if he has any purse at all. One hon. member on the other side of the house who happened to be of the medical profession said in reply that he did not think that such was the case. He felt that the medical profession generally never hesitated to take care of the sick when they needed care, whether they had any more money or not. I am proud to be able to say that I think that is so in most cases, but unfortunately there are cases, and I have come across them, where the medical official does not always take that generous attitude. I well remember the case of a family in 1918 during the flu epidemic. This family was attended by a medical practitioner, but as soon as he found out that they had no money and that he was not likely to get paid, he left instructions with them how to take care of themselves and said that he was too busy to come again. But just as soon as the municipality decided to guarantee all the medical bills of those who were suffering from influenza, this same practitioner came back and continued to visit the family regularly. The same man told a friend of mine that if the flu had lasted for only two years more, he would have been in a position to retire for good. I just throw that out in answer to the criticism of my statement that was made the other day.
Under present conditions, too many people, fearing the cost of medical or hospital care, put off calling in the necessary medical assistance until it is too late. It is to get around this difficulty that I am proposing this resolution to the house. Through preventive medicine a lot of people can be guarded against sickness. That is much better than allowing themselves to become ill, and then attempting a cure.
I am very glad to give praise to the splendid work that has been carried on by the Canadian Social Hygiene Council in educating the people throughout this country to the importance of taking care of health. Many organizations are engaged in health educational work, and many suggestions are being made. The one before us to-day is that of the full time health unit. This system of preventive medicine, of course, has been very successful indeed in the United States, where they have between 300 and 400 health units, working with splendid results. This system
has been encouraged in this country and elsewhere. Some parts of this country have taken advantage of the offer of the Rockefeller Foundation, which very generously provides one-third of the cost of these health units for the first three years. When they .have been going three years and the Rockefeller Foundation steps out, according to the agreement, the extra expense has to be taken care of locally by the provincial government or some other body, and what I am asking in this resolution is that the federal government shall assume its share and bear one-third of the cost of these full time health units.


Mr. ILSLEY:: After the first three years?


Henry Elvins Spencer: Yes.
Sickness is not local or provincial; it is interprovincial, and as the federal government look after various matters of interprovincial concern, I ask that they assume the responsibility of looking after one-third of the cost of these health units for the purpose of preventing sickness, because sickness so far as we are concerned is interprovincial. The various provinces of Canada have begun to organize to a considerable extent full time health units. The province of Quebec has been ahead of all the rest. It has to-day twenty-three health units, and is organizing three more. British Columbia has five, and is very enthusiastic indeed over their success already; Alberta is organizing two health units this year.
As to the cost of these organizations, I was reading some literature from the province of Quebec this morning, which shows that the average cost of a health unit is from $12,000 to $13,000, and they are serving anywhere from 15,000 to 53,000 people, according to the density of the population.
I should like to quote from a letter that I received the other day from Dr. H. E. Young, who is a provincial health officer for British Columbia. He sent me a booklet on health, and he says:
On page 41 there is an account of the Saanich unit, the first one established. I would particularly call your attention to the improvement in school attendance, the correc-;ipn of defects and the saving in money, particularly in regard to the amount of money saved as a result of our work in reference to retarders, or what may be called the cost of educating children who have to repeat grades. You will note that while retardation cost Saanich $17,000 in 1928, the cost was reduced to $11,000 in 1929, and this has been further cut down to $600 in 1930. This has been largely due to our work in conjunction with the inspector of schools, who is a very able man. This has been a remarkable saving in cost.
National Health

He says further:
t 1 have not a printed report of North Vancouver health unit, which was opened last September, but the response of the people after the first few months of operation has been wonderful.
The letter ends as follows:
We began this work in the autumn of 1927 and the results have more than justified our predictions. In a unit the work is consolidated, the nurses are well trained, the medical man in charge does not practise, but devotes his whole time to preventive work, and the people are realizing the real purport of our efforts, and public education on health matters is progressing in a most satisfactory manner.
There is so much good material from which I could draw for the purposes of this address I find some difficulty in knowing what to leave out. I wish particularly to put on record a statement made by Sir William Arbuthnot Lane which deals specially with preventive medicine. Sir William Arbuthnot Lane was one of the foremost physicians and surgeons of Great Britain. He pointed out the folly of the present system of treating the sick instead of saving lives by the prevention of disease. The quotation is as follows:
The great development of the future in medicine, as I see it, will lie in the scrapping of present ideas and the concentrating upon keeping people fit and enabling them to build up physical power and energy to resist disease.
And the quotation goes on as follows:
More and more doctors are beginning to realize that it is archaic folly to treat only the sick.
I am informed by medical men that such diseases as diphtheria, typhoid fever and scarlet fever are largely preventable. Yet in spite of this fact great numbers die annually of these diseases. To give some idea of the extent to which these diseases may be controlled, I find by records which I trust are correct, that during the war period typhoid was so controlled that from this disease we did not lose a single Canadian soldier in France. We find from the records that within a period of one year tuberculosis is responsible for the death of over 7,000 people. Yet, according to literature put out by the Canadian Social Hygiene Council this disease could be completely eliminated by the exercise of health control. Similar figures are available with respect to cancer and heart disease. I think, however, for my purposes the figures I have quoted are sufficient. In closing I should like to quote from one of the addresses given in the house about a 'year ago. Hon. members will recall that the then Minister of Finance, although speaking in support of the resolution, simply asked the

question: "From where is the money to come"? At this time I am going to quote from the remarks of the right hon. gentleman *who is now the Finance minister. Speaking in the debate which took place on March 3 last year the Hon. R. B. Bennett made the following statement, as at page 234 of Hansard:
Touching the necessity for the establishment of health units nothing need be said; I think the case is complete almost before it is stated.
At a later stage he said:
"A nation's health is a nation's wealth." We as a parliament are concerned in the health of the Canadian people as a whole. To the extent to which men are able to labour, free from disease, we have added to the national wealth; to the extent which citizens by studying preventive medicine obtain knowledge, from clinics and other methods, for which the nation might *well pay, we have added to the national wealth of Canada.
And, further he states:
We are asked merely to make a grant in aid of the effort which the provinces will carry forward to ensure the health of the Canadian people as a whole, not provincially but nationally, not in a narrow and circumscribed area but throughout this Dominion as a whole, in order that the knowledge of preventive medicine may become universal and in order that the greatest means known to man to increase the national wealth, namely, measures to ensure the national health of our people, may become an accomplished fact.
1 am in support of this resolution for that reason.
Those were the words of the present Prime Minister of this country. I have not the slightest doubt that he believes the same today. I know that he is very much interested in the subject of health, because for some years he was closely connected with the work of the Red Cross. Whether or not we may agree with him concerning certain subjects we recognize that our present Prime Minister is a man of action. Having heard his words last year, I hope he will this year repeat them. In view of the fact that he holds the most important portfolio, that of finance, I hope he will see his way clear again to support this resolution which was so well supported last year by hon. members behind him.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Can the hon. member give any information as to what has been done in the maritime provinces?


Henry Elvins Spencer: No, I have no figures
concerning the maritime provinces.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: I rise to support the principle of this resolution because if adopted it will carry to the door steps of the people of this country the very

National Health
best that has been learned along the lines of preventive medicine. I believe the suggestion is sound in theory, reasonably easy of application and possible under present financial conditions. If adopted it will represent. a progressive step toward a more even distribution of the benefits of the best that the age affords in the way of preventive medicine and health insurance. Every province has done much to assist in curing disease. For instance, the province of Alberta has encouraged the building of twenty-two municipal hospitals and pays grants to eighty-seven approved hospitals. That province supports a provincial sanatarium and was the first to construct a special hospital for the treatment of infantile paralysis. Those of us who know about the deformities left by this dread disease will be most enthusiastic in the support of this movement. That province also provides some physicians in outlying rural districts, and travelling clinics do mutch to provide dentistry and minor operations for people in districts who otherwise would not receive such care. A health unit is something which will appeal to the people who dread or shrink from the necessity of travelling long distances or going among strangers to receive advice or care. The health unit would bring to the homes of the people the advice they are entitled to receive.
What is a health unit? In Alberta there is a proposal to establish two units during the present year, one at Red Deer, and one at High River. The total cost is expected to reach about $10,000 or $12,000 per year. The Rockefeller Institute will provide one-quarter of the sum for the period of three years, the province will provide one-half and the remaining quarter will be raised by the municipalities included in the unit. The staffs have already been appointed consisting of a medical officer specially qualified in public health work, a sanitary inspector, a secretary and a public health nurse. This is not some new or untried venture. Health units have proven their usefulness for a period of twenty years. The first unit was established in Yakima county in 1910 and there are now 500 health units in the United States. Quebec has twenty-three, Saskatchewan has two, New Brunswick three or four and British Columbia four.
Now, briefly what is the work of these health units? It falls naturally under four heads. The first is child welfare, and has to do with examination of school children and children of pre-school age. Are hon. members aware that thirty out of every hundred children attending school have defective eyesight?
This is often neglected and it results in much sorrow and much discomfort later in life. A large number of children have diseased tonsils and teeth, defective heart and lungs, and suffer from malnutrition. These health units will have officers right on the ground who will go to the homes and talk to the parents on the disabilities that their children are labouring under and advise them as to the best means of obtaining treatment. The second division of this work covers control of contagious diseases. Something has been said about the prevention of diphtheria, smallpox and scarlet fever. It has been stated on good authority that diphtheria and scarlet-fever should be unknown in the next generation of children, there being methods of immunization which in the great majority of cases will prevent these diseases. The health unit also takes control of venereal disease, tuberculosis and infantile paralysis. Certainly this offers a great field of activity, and if the work is properly conducted it will bring glorious results. The third heading has to do with public health education, that is, sanitary inspection, testing of water supply and food, vital statistics, disposal of sewage, as well as education along the lines of cleanliness.
I have left to the last perhaps the most important work which could be done locally by a health clinic; I refer to life extension work. In one of these districts there are probably 3,600 school children, and the activities of the health unit would effect a saving of $1,800 right there. What are the causes of sudden death among men and women during the years of their active life? Tuberculosis is no longer the dreaded disease that it once was, but there is still a great deal of mortality attributable to heart disease, kidney trouble and diabetes. What are the causes of these deaths? Some are caused by complications resulting from infectious diseases suffered in childhood. Many deaths are caused by improper habits of living, by unwise diet, and by the presence of infectious foci which are slowly poisoning the system. Where is the man or woman approaching fifty who should be examined to see if any of these diseases are present in their early stages? Acting on what such an examination discloses the proper means of treatment may be taken advantage of. We hear of the sudden death of many people at fifty and onwards, and I am convinced that a little money spent in encouraging the establishment of health units would do much to prevent this mortality, because appropriate treatment could be taken in time to eradicate or control the trouble.
National Health

It used to be said, "If you wish to be healthy go to the country." That advice does not apply at the present time because the death rate in the country is 8 per cent in excess of that in the cities. Modern preventive medicine has done much to lower the death rate in urban centres. Due to sickness and disease we have an economic loss of $300,000,000 a year. We do much to prevent fire hazards. Surely we should do much more to prevent premature death and thus preserve -the precious asset of healthy people. In short, the aims of health units would be to make growth more perfect, decay less rapid, death more remote, and life more vigorous, happy and successful. The watchword is prevention.


Murray MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the house is indebted to the mover of this resolution (Mr. Spencer) and the hon. member who has spoken in support of it (Mr. Gershaw) as well as to other members who last session took part in the presentation of this important subject of health units, for its discussion familiarizes hon. members and the public with this special method of caring for public health. In Canada public health units were established only a few years ago, and even in the United States, as the hon. member has just said, it was only about twenty years ago that they were there established.
Before I deal with the subject matter of the resolution I should like to draw the attention of the mover to its wording-

the decision of parliament made on the 3rd of March, 1930, to make grants to the provinces-
As far as I understand it, the resolution referred to was that the house commend the subject matter to the favourable consideration of the government.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I have the resolution and will hand it over to the hon. minister.


Murray MacLaren: I thank the hon. member. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of making grants.
Well, that does not say that it is the decision of parliament to make grants.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Parliament decided last
session to accept the resolution.


Murray MacLaren: Yes, but the resolution
does not state that parliament would make grants. Money could not have been voted under that resolution. I think if the mover

will refer to the debate last session he will find that this house simply commended to the favourable consideration of the government the making of grants to establish health units.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that always resolutions of this character must be framed in that way, because a private member may not introduce a resolution or motion which involves the expenditure of public funds? The decision of the house was undoubtedly that work should be. done along that line.


Murray MacLaren: I do not quite accept
the explanation of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). The resolution last year was correctly framed, but I do not think the present resolution is, for undoubtedly parliament did not make a grant as stated. I simply mention this for the sake of accuracy. I think that the mover intended both by the resolution he moved last session and by the one now before us that health units be looked upon favourably by the government. The present situation, as we know, is that within the past few years the development of health units has progressed very considerably in Canada, and at present in Quebec there are some twenty-three of these units. Let me say that the province of Quebec has led in this special activity.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: But may I direct
the attention of the minister to the fact that in Quebec at present the burden falls on the municipalities as much as it falls on the provincial government. That is why this resolution will be of great help, even in the province of Quebec, if it is accepted.


Murray MacLaren: As I said before, the
province of Quebec has led in this activity- I am not referring to the provincial government especially-and it has been particularly fortunate in that the movement has received the confidence and support of the people generally to a marked extent. The secret of the spread of health units in Quebec is that their establishment has been acceptable to the people generally. The people of that province, together with the clergy, have done what they could to further this advance, and it is well known that one of the secrets of success in health work is to obtain the hearty cooperation of the people. There have been many instances in the past where people were indifferent to or resisted health measures, but in this case the country has been fortunate in having these proposals received with open arms, as far as I have been able to observe.

National Health
There are a few units in British Columbia, and of course that is the way we must start. Some hon. member asked a moment ago about the maritime provinces. I am afraid he is not here at the moment, but in this connection I may say that I am informed that some philanthropic organization, some large insurance company or in any case some organization desirous of doing good, has undertaken to finance two health units in Prince Edward Island, which will cover that province. Not long ago it was announced that the province of Ontario proposed to institute health units, and while these plans are being held in abeyance at the moment I think the people of the province generally are looking forward to the organization and establishment of these units.
Within the last few years there has been a very considerable advance in this direction, and certainly there has been much evidence of the approval of the people and of health authorities. This is a sound, practical method of dealing with public health. Perhaps I should have mentioned also that in the United States, where this work was started before it was begun in Canada, there are something over four hundred units at the present time:
It seems to me that these health units very well might be called rural health units, because I think their great usefulness is in the rural districts. Cities of any size have health units to-day, many of which are doing excellent work, but the rural population is not supplied to any extent with the protection and comfort of these health measures. It has been thought desirable, not only from the standpoint of health but for the good of the country, to offer this protection and comfort to the rural population so that they may enjoy the advantages which are afforded the people living in cities. Other things being equal, one would have reason to suppose that the health of the rural community would be better than that of the city, but that is not the case. I think the obvious explanation is that health measures are not available in the country to the same extent that they are available in the cities, and the health measures of the city are sufficient to overcome the advantages of the pure air and sunshine of the country.
There is one thing we should not forget, and that is that these health units may be of great advantage in maternity welfare. Of course they will do good work in connection with contagious diseases and so on, but maternity welfare is going on, or should be going on all the time, no matter how healthy a community may be. Unfortunately, in the country the care given mothers must be very in-22110-108
adequate, and I believe this method may do a great deal towards meeting this very important need.
As hon. members are aware, these units are composed of four or five individuals; there is a health officer, a sanitary inspector, one or two trained nurses and perhaps a clerk. The great advantage lies in the fact that there is a full time health officer. The day has gone when we .can depend on any general practitioner being an efficient health officer. The work is too great and the advances in public health are too frequent to enable us to look for efficiency in public health matters in a general practitioner.
I do not think we need over-emphasize this matter of health units; there is no doubt they are very excellent things. The question is how to establish them. As the mover of this resolution has pointed out, this subject has received the warm support of the present Prime Minister, and I am sure his opinions have not changed in this regard. We have had several very important health matters discussed in this house during the session, and hon. members will notice from the order paper that there are still others to be considered. I believe they must be worded out in some systematic way, for it would be hardly possible to start them all at the same time. It is proposed that a conference shall be held to which will be invited the health officers of the different provinces. I cannot state definitely just when that conference will be held, but it will be at some convenient and suitable time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To whom will invitations be issued, the provincial ministers or their deputies?


Murray MacLaren: To the health officers,
but I do not wish to be too definite about that. The health authorities of the different provinces will be invited to come to Ottawa to take part in this conference.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Speaker, is it not a
fact that the Dominion health council, comprised of the health officers of the provinces, met in Ottawa in 1928 and went on record unanimously as being in favour of full time health units?


Murray MacLaren: I believe that is a fact. I remember reading something about that not very long ago but I cannot say that I have actually seen the resolution. These different health officers will be invited to this conference to consider the proper methods to be adopted and the parts to be played by the

National Health

Dominion and provincial governments. Under these circumstances action on this specific resolution cannot be promised at the present moment, but it will be considered at the appropriate time.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to express my entire accord with the resolution. I am decidedly in favour of municipal health units, or full time health units being established wherever they are needed in Canada. There are many districts in Canada where such a service is needed. As I intimated on a former occasion, I would like to see the government go farther and establish periodic medical examinations for the entire citizenship of Canada. I would like to see facilities provided for the people of this country to obtain medical treatment at such times as it was necessary. The establishment of full time health units is a decided step in the right direction. There are sparsely populated districts which cannot possibly undertake the establishment of health departments, and this is an excellent substitute. I have nothing more to say on this matter at the present time other than to express my entire accord.


Eugène Fiset: Mr
Speaker, I was rather struck with the minister's statement that it is the intention of the government to invite this year the heads of the various health departments.


Murray MacLaren: I did not say this year.


Edward Joseph Garland: We had
hoped it would be this year.


Eugène Fiset: Although I have no definite knowledge as to what is taking place outside of my own province, I can speak with authority as to what has occurred in Quebec. Great strides have been made during the past few years in that province. Rural Quebec has been divided into ten districts, at the head of which is a permanent health officer. In each unit there is one fully qualified doctor, two nurses and a sufficient executive staff to carry on the work. Marvellous work has been carried on in the rural districts during the past two years, but there is no question that the maintenance of these health units is becoming quite a burden on the municipalities. The success obtained is due to the education of the people, to the efforts of the clergy and to the efforts of the medical profession. Should the minister decide to call a conference either this year or next year I would suggest that not only the heads of the different health departments be invited, but also the men in charge of each district who would derive

tremendous benefit by being present at this conference and listening to the discussion. I sincerely hope the resolution which was proposed last year and accepted unanimously by this house, and out of which we expected some action, will be considered even more favourably this year and if no immediate relief can be given to the provinces this year, we hope that something will be done next year.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention! of saying more than a very few words on this subject because there seems to be complete unanimity in the house. Several facts stand out as definite and as being accepted by this house. The first is that the maintenance of public health, both by preventive and curative measures is essential for the nation. The second is that there is perhaps mo better method of ensuring that health than by means of health units, particularly so in the sparsely settled districts where it has been found very difficult to provide medical and hospital attention. This is a matter which the public in one capacity or another should support. When I say the public, I mean in a financial sense as municipalities, provinces or the federal government. Every effort should be made to avoid wastage and to assure that the proper results are reached. Every method of coordination should be used, and one definite plan should be adopted from one end of the country to the other. To achieve that end we must have the financial cooperation of the municipalities, who have a certain definite responsibility and who understand as no other authority can understand the peculiar circumstances of each particular case; we must have the cooperation of the provinces with their knowledge on a wider scale of the necessities of their particular districts, and as germs and disease know no provincial boundaries, any more than they can be kept closed in by the wire fences of any particular municipality, we must have some federal cooperation expressed in the terms of financial assistance. In my opinion the one practical step which should be taken at the moment is that when such a conference is held, as has been suggested by the minister, and when the matter is discussed, it would be not only of value but almost essential that the different representatives in meeting should know exactly how the different authorities view this matter; that they should know whether in the plans which they may discuss and which they may be prepared to draw up, they may depend upon the effective support of all those three authorities, because the plans which they might lay at such a conference must rest

National Health
to a very large degree upon their knowledge of the attitude which the federal, provincial and municipal governments will take when these plans are put into effect. To that end I would again suggest it would be well for the house as it did a year ago, once more to express its opinion-I am not speaking about division or a recorded vote-and pronounce definitely by the acceptance of this resolution, thus giving assurance to those representatives when they meet, that when they draw up their plans they may depend again upon the definite sympathy and financial support of parliament as well as of the provincial and municipal authorities. Therefore I feel that this resolution should be accepted unanimously, and the government should continue to give that consideration which would enable them to supplement with effective support those plans at the time they are definitely drawn up.


Mr. G. D. STANLEY (East Calgary):: The resolution before the house brings up a very interesting discussion of the whole question of health activities as they affect the federal government, provincial governments and municipal governments, the division of jurisdictions, and the degree of activity which should be pursued by the various governments, all pressing upon us the necessity for some definite decision, after proper conference, between the different governments in regard to the division of their jurisdictions. The other day when we were discussing the question of state medicine, preventive medicine was brought forward as one of the great functions of the state, and I for one am quite prepared that, as far as the resources of the country and as far as the financial resources of the various governments will permit, the state should stand behind preventive measures in connection with health activities.
When we come to the question of health units, we have one of the best efforts of scientific minds to-day in advancing preventive measures. Real undertakings in some of the provinces are being advanced. In the province from which I come, as an hon. member has already pointed out, two health units are being established, fairly well organized and ready to start functioning. I believe Ontario has announced a wider program and the provincial ministry of health intends to establish in different parts of the province health units carried out on a more extensive scale than is the case at present.


Mr. TUMMON:: It is twenty years ago
since they first started.


George Douglass Stanley: It is the only way in which effective results can be secured. The efforts of private physicians to treat the addicts to narcotic drugs is sure to meet with failure. At the present time the drug addicts in our province, and I presume it is the same in most of the provinces, are either given treatment in their homes by private physicians, or they are sent into the general hospitals for treatment, or as is done in our province, in some cases they are committed to a mental hospital-for treatment. Now in the great majority of the mental hospitals in this country, and in practically all of our general hospitals, there are no facilities for the proper treatment of drug addicts, and if any advance is to be made in their treatment there must bfe special institutions for their special treatment. The question at once arises, who shall provide those institutions? Shall it be the municipality, the provincial government or the federal government? Who shall provide for their maintenance? That is a proper question, I think, for discussion at such a conference as has been suggested.
May I go just a little further in regard to some of the difficulties that present themselves? To-day the question of caring for mental cases in all the provinces is becoming a tremendous task. It is a burden that is resting upon the taxpayers of our province almost beyond endurance. I am informed, and I believe it is correct, that there are more mental cases in the mental hospitals of Canada than there are patients in all the other general hospitals in this country put together. If that statement is correct it gives the house some idea of the problem that presents itself, and the sad feature is that the number of mental cases is increasing year by year. The question arises, are we going to 'be able in the provinces and in the municipalities to deal with the cases in the way that is required? Is the burden going to be carried as it has been carried in the past? Those again are questions that I think might properly come under the survey of the proposed conference.
If the federal government is going to enter further into health activities, may I in that connection point out that the greater portion Df the cost of sickness is included in the hospital costs. To-day most of our hospitals are finding their financing a great burden, which is becoming heavier every day. Heretofore the provinces have been giving grants, small as compared with the great work that has been done by the hospitals. If the highly expensive care of the patient which is given in our hospitals is to be continued and if the preventive medicine side of the work that

has been asked of our hospitals is to 'be extended, measures must be provided for the necessary financing. That again is a proper subject for discussion at the proposed conference.
Hence, Mr. Speaker, while I am in favour of any action by any government that would advance the cause of preventive medicine, whether it be the promotion of health units, greater activity in our health organizations in the municipalities, in the provinces or in the federal sphere, at the same time it seems to me that the problem is of such magnitude and such great importance that the federal government should very carefully deliberate just how it can be most effective in its assistance, and where financial assistance is given to preventive medicine, how it can be given most effectively, and where the jurisdiction should lie. All these considerations impress upon me the necessity of a conference between all the various governments and health organizations concerned with a view to arriving at the conclusion that will give the best results.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the 3rd day of March, 1930, this
house unanimously agreed to the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government	should	take	into	consideration	the
advisability of making grants to the provinces equal to one-third the cost of establishing, and to cover permanently such full time health units as may be organized.
The motion now before the house is:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government	should	take	into	consideration	theadvisability of carrying into effect the decision of parliament made on the 3rd March, 1930, to make	grants to the	provinces equal to	onethird of	cost of	establishing,	and to cover	permanently, such full time health units as may be organized.
In other words, the resolution is that the government should take into consideration the advisability of considering tbe advisability of taking the action in question. That is what it means. There is only one method by which that can be done, and that is by considering the matter with the provinces. To do that involves the discussion not only of the question of overlapping of effort, but the question of the extent to which effort should be made by the provinces and the Dominion and the character of the work which should be done by the health units, also the question of the financial burden that would be involved.
It is unquestioned that any effort that ensures the health of the people of this country adds to its national wealth. But it

National Health
is equally true that the direct measure of benefit in the first instance is largely through those branches of our activities that are covered by the ninety-second section of the British North America Act. I have not in any sense changed the opinion that I expressed formerly as to the desirability of making a very vigorous effort through the united endeavour of the Dominion and the provinces to ensure improved health conditions of the people of Canada, but I am certain that the mere adopting of a resolution in a new House of Commons, commendable though it is, will not accomplish that purpose any more than the passing of the resolution a year ago last March did accomplish it. But it does do this:	It directs public attention to the desirability of action being taken to induce the people to think in terms of preventive medicine, realizing the soundness of the old saying that prevention is better than cure.
If I were to take the time this afternoon, I could point out that already very considerable sums of money provided by the Dominion are being expended through the provinces, for this purpose. The hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley) has referred to some of the work done in connection with the treatment of narcotic drug addicts. Hon. members will observe in the estimates that there are $100,000 being provided by the Dominion treasury for the benefit of social services rendered to health departments of the provinces. Contributions from the Dominion treasury bring up another matter mentioned by my hon. friend from Battle River (Mr. Spencer) concerning the desirability of maintaining some of the voluntary organizations which have done such excellent work in connection with the housing of public interest concerning the health of the people. From the very nature of things, in the end these voluntary organizations would go out of existence. Their effort is to arouse public opinion to such an extent that action is taken, and when necessary action has been taken the necessity for further effort on their part ceases. That has been the experience in connection with two or three such movements in the Dominion in the last twenty-five years. Groups of high-minded public-spirited citizens have organized as a voluntary association and as such have promoted public measures. Such measures have been promoted through educational effort, by the use of posters, by lectures and various other means. Private subscriptions have been made and in many instances these have been supplemented by grants from provinces and from the Dominion exchequer.

The result has been -that when public opinion has been aroused it has expressed itself in the manner by which the will of democracy is made known, namely by the enactment of legislation giving effect to the aims and purposes of the voluntary associations to which I have referred.
I need hardly say that is the British way by which reforms are accomplished. Those who will take the trouble to think back for a moment will realize that almost all great reforms, whether it be the load line on ships which we owe to the efforts of Samuel Plimsoll, the social reforms secured by Howard and Lord Shaftsbury, or the improvements of medical services and nursing in the army resulting from the efforts of Florence Nightingale, have come about through the voluntary effort and sometimes through months and years of toil on the part of those who have set up and maintained voluntary organizations for the purpose of creating a public opinion which would place upon the statute books of the country the desired -measures.
Measures to improve public health are based in the first place upon a selfish desire on the part of the state. It realizes that ultimately disease means loss, loss of earning power, loss from inability to create new wealth, loss through maintenance during periods of illness, loss to families sometimes resulting in poverty itself. To no inconsiderable extent the state has -been governed by selfish considerations. Such considerations may not be the most desirable in the world, yet they are those which in the end perhaps have weighed as highly as any other upon the minds of legislators themselves. Then there is the individual to be considered. There is the thought in every man that he should make so-me contribution to the welfare of the community in which he lives, and the taxes which he pays, and which after all constitute the revenue of the country, should be made useful and effective for the purpose of promoting health and happiness in those who have not been so fortunate. Sometimes the thought is prompted by an experience in connection with disease or illness. A person may thus have an earnest desire by preventive measures to make it impossible for others to become ill, and to ensure the freedom of others from the disease or illness from which he has suffered.
Let us consider the use of vaccines. Let us consider the problem of rendering the people of this country immune from disease. There are vaccines for many ills, antitoxins for typhoid and diphtheria, and in an indirect way the Dominion is constantly making con-
169S

National Health
tributions to health work. Health units go deeper than that; they go farther than that. They aim to create, if possible, a healthy community by commencing even in the prenatal days of the child, to ensure conditions which will bring about health in the citizen. From a time prior to the birth of the child and until he or she has attained manhood or womanhood and after, the health unit is in constant service. Consideration is thus given to the responsibility of the state for the health and happiness of the individual. Steps are taken first to prevent the recurrence of disease and ensure protection from centres of infection such as the teeth and tonsils. Children's diseases such as scarlet fever and measles are given consideration. Then when those children reach the teen age they are surrounded with conditions which will ensure their strength of body and mind to meet the problems of the life which lie before them. We are doing work along that line all the time. The Dominion is indirectly making its contribution to these health units. I believe it is possible to attain the operation of health units in every part of the country and in every part of this Dominion only through the joint action of federal and provincial authorities.
It is quite clear that in the realm of taxation, for instance, there must be a clearer understanding than heretofore there has been. It is not possible for the Dominion to raise money by any mode or process of taxation merely for the purpose of passing it on to the provinces, if before it is raised it is felt -that such money is raised for provincial purposes. If however for national ends the Dominion regards it as necessary that contributions should be made to further the efforts of the provinces carrying on their work within their more restricted areas, I think very little difficulty will be experienced. That of course involves very close study and consideration of the problem by provincial and Dominion authorities.
I need hardly say that, since August 7, this administration has not had the opportunity, owing to the conditions which prevail in this country, to call the conference it will call to deal not only with problems of taxation but also with problems concerning which there may be duplication of effort by the Dominion and the provinces. There is a federal health department. Most of the provinces have provincial health departments. It is quite clear that unless .there is a clear defining of the respective services to be carried on by
[Mr. Barnett.j
these departments there will be duplication of effort and loss caused through such' duplication. Early in his term of office I think it was contemplated by the Minister of National Health that he might be able to call a conference, but matters of more supreme importance in connection with the other branch of his department prevented such a conference. A conference was called which lasted but a day to deal with a constitutional matter. , Knowing that to deal with problems connected with taxation and activities over which both the Dominion and the provinces have jurisdiction, such as agriculture, health and matters of that kind, a conference will take several days, probably weeks; that some of those matters would involve an amendment to the constitution and others an agreement merely to define the work to be undertaken, we can agree only that this motion may pass as the motion last year passed. However I direct attention to the terms in which the motion is drawn, lest it should be said that the decision taken last year was a decision that meant more than the terms signify, and that the result of passing the resolution would be that this government is instructed by the house-as was the government that was in office before this administration-to take into consideration other than the advisability of carrying into effect the decision of parliament last year, which charged the then government to take into consideration the advisability of considering the establishment of full time health units, to the cost of which one-third was to be contributed by the federal authorities and two-thirds by the provincial . authorities. Without in any sense [DOT]committing the government as to the extent to which contribution may be made, or as to the terms under which assistance may be rendered, or as to when it may be possible to have the matter dealt with, because I can hold out no hopes that it can be dealt with this week or next week, this month or next month-without, I say, in any sense committing the administration to any of these details, we are quite content that the resolution should be unanimously adopted by the house; for the opinions that were expressed unanimously last session, are, I take it, still the unanimous opinions of the house.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to
express my very hearty appreciation of the most excellent support that has been given to the resolution by members from all parts

Agricultural Credits
of the house. I wish to congratulate the Minister of Health (Mr. MacLaren) upon not doing what his predecessor did a year ago-take shelter behind the British North America Act. Instead, the hon. minister came out flatly with the declaration that this was a sane, practical method of dealing with public health. I wish, however, to draw attention to one point, the calling of a conference. I am only too glad to think that a conference is going to be called. But when the Minister of Health was asked by someone on this side whether it would be called this year, he intimated at once that possibly it would not be. I would have been much better satisfied had the Minister of Health or the Prime Minister been able to give us some definite idea when the conference will be called. We all know how easily these things are put off. If we could only have some promise that the conference will be called at the earliest opportunity, it would be something to look forward to. The Prime Minister mentioned that certain contributions are already being made by the federal government to the provinces in aid of health work. I would point out that so far as I am aware there is no new contribution being made this year beyond what was being made a year ago. I want, however, sincerely to thank the Prime Minister for the support which he has given to the resolution.
As to the wording of the resolution, under the rules of the house I had no other way of presenting it. I gladly accept the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the matter be left to a further conference, and I hope that that conference will be called at the earliest possible date.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, consideration should be given to the setting up of a system of intermediate credits for agriculture.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the statement is
heard repeatedly to-day that if Canada could find a satisfactory market for her wheat, we would speedily recover from the depression in which we are now involved. It is more readily recognized to-day than formerly that agriculture and industry are becoming more and more interdependent, and that one cannot continue to succeed at the expense of the other; both must march forward together. Up to the present time agriculture has not received proper consideration, in so far as
credit facilities are concerned, but has managed to carry on because of homestead and cheap fertile land. That period is past Conditions have so changed that no longer can the farmer be described as the most independent man on earth. To-day he is part and parcel of the great world industrial machine, and while our prairie farmer may be situated in the centre of the North American continent thousands of miles from the sea, he is as vitally interested in the daily reports of world happenings and conditions as is the individual in any other walk of life.
The farmer is being told to-day that he must reduce the cost of his production. I realize that that is true, but I believe I am right when I say that the Canadian farmer is faced with, greater handicaps in the matter of distance from markets and high interest rates than is the farmer in any other country. And yet I say without fear of contradiction that there is no country in which the per capita production is so great as in Canada, and it is my opinion that there is no one thing that would go further to assist the farmer to reduce his cost of production than lower interest rates. Dr. Tory, who gave a great deal of study to this question a few years ago, brought in a supplementary report in 1925 on Agricultural Credit, and I wish to quote a few excerpts along the line of the handicaps under which the farmer is labouring. On page 9 of that report Dr. Tory says:
It ought to be clear to anybody that Canada is slowly passing through the stage in her agricultural development that the United States was passing through some years ago, viz., the best lands of the country have been taken up, wealth accumulating from the rise in land prices will, in a large measure cease, and land mortgages based on growing prices will be harder to carry.
Further on he says:
In addition, he finds himself in competition in the markets of the world with countries where complete and ample financial organizations have been created for agricultural purposes. For example, in all the countries of western Europe capital is obtainable at a rate not exceeding 5 per cent and current money at similar rates. This has been brought about by special legislation in the interest of agriculture.
Again, he says:
The distances from the markets of the world also place the western provinces and to a limited degree the eastern provinces also at a great disadvantage.
My object, Mr. Speaker, in moving this resolution, is not to get any special privilege for the farmer, nor to get what might be termed easy money, but rather for the pur-
Agricultural Credits

pose of placing agriculture more on an equality with other industries in so far as securing legitimate credit is concerned. Europe recognized this question years ago and dealt with it. The United States recognized it almost twenty years ago, and the government sent a very able commission to Europe to study the various systems of agricultural credit, and later they introduced a very comprehensive plan to deal with the matter. With the permission of the house I should like to quote from a speech made by Harvie Jordan, a member of the commission.
Jhe governments of every European country which our commission visited took the broad position that the strongest foundation upon wu}ch any great nation could be built was one which was supported by a progressive, happy, and contented agricultural population.
From this standpoint the governments of the best agricultural countries of Europe have for the past half century given every possible cooperation and assistance to the development of their agricultural industry.
It is a singular fact in this connection, that while foreign farmers secure their borrowed capital at 4 per cent per annum, the average rate of interest on commercial loans for the same countries is from 5 to 6 per cent.
[DOT]	condition of affairs is just the reverse
in the United States. Our merchants, manufacturers, and railway corporations secure loans at from 5 to 6 per cent, while the average rate of interest charged our farmers is from 9 to 10 per cent. Not only this, the government of the United States has for the past 50 years bent its best efforts, energies, and powerful influences, through the enactment of federal legislation, to foster and protect the great industrial businesses of the nation, leaving American agriculture to carve its way along as best it could.
In the establishment of the national banking system of this country farm lands were outlawed by federal enactment as a class of security upon which loans should not be negotiated. Yet it must be admitted that the safest and highest class of gilt edge securities m the nation to-day are its improved farm lands, upon which the government, the people, and all other industries of the nation must depend for support and progress.
That statement applies equally to Canada to-day. It is not my purpose at this time to criticize our banking system. I believe it has been excellent for the needs it was designed to meet, but in its present form it does not and cannot adequately serve the present day needs of agriculture. It is my opinion that the average business man does not fully realize the change that has taken place in agricultural conditions during the past thirty or forty years, and the urgent need for credit to-day as compared with former times. I believe a better understanding of this question by the urban dweller would work to the benefit of all concerned.
TMr. Lucas.]
Just here I should like to quote from one of the other commissioners, Mr. Gordon Jones:
Let us keep in mind, in our discussion of this subject, the relative importance of the citj' and the country. Destroy the city and the country surrounding it would soon rebuild that city, but destroy the country surrounding a city and the city could not rebuild the country, but of itself could not long survive. The more prosperous the country, the greater and more prosperous the city, and as the city becomes greater and more prosperous it is stronger position to render financial assistance to the country. As the city increases its manufacturing output and enlarges its industrial activities, its population of consumers increases and a greater market is thereby made for the products of the country. There is indeed an interlocking of interest and a consequent need of "cooperation" between the city and country, and the best results can only be obtained by a spirit of harmony and proper understanding.
I wish I could impress forcibly upon every member of this house the importance of that statement. Let me say to our manufacturers and our business and professional men, if you want to help yourselves, the quickest and surest way to do it is through the farmer. It is a well known fact that when agriculture is prosperous so likewise are other industries.
With regard to the changed conditions of agriculture, no greater proof can be offered than to recall to those hon. members who, through the courtesy of the International Harvester Company, witnessed a short time ago a moving picture entitled Romance of the Reaper, an illustration of the development of the machinery of production from 1831 down to the present time. But, Mr. Speaker, while lalbour-saving machinery has solved the problem of production and removed from farming a great deal of the drudgery and hard work, it has brought in its train other problems equally important and, I believe, more far-reaching in their consequences which must be faced to-day. I refer to the problems of finance and distribution. While the introduction of machinery has increased production and taken much of the drudgery out of farming, the present method of financing, with high interest rates, has more than offset this benefit. I believe that to-day the farmer is more of a slave than he was in former times, but in a different way; for it is a trite saying that work never killed a man but worry did. When I think of the state of mind of the vast majority of farmers in western Canada to-day because of the staggering burden of interest they are carrying, with very little hope of ever getting out from under, I cannot help but admire the courage and fortitude with which they are carrying on.

Agricultural Credits
I feel confident, Mr. Speaker, that if the same energy, the same intelligence and determination were applied to the solution of the credit problem as have been applied to scientific and technical questions, equal success would result. Sir Josiah Stamp, who is recognized as one of the outstanding British economists, is reported to have made the statement that science and invention might well take a holiday for twenty years, and he proposed that business men and financiers should give more time t-o the study of elementary economics.
The problems and difficulties with which we are faced at the .present time are man-made problems. They are not caused by lack of raw materials or by our inability to convert those raw materials into usable form; rather the reverse is the case. I am convinced that since man has created this .problem man can solve it, if only he will set himself seriously to the task. As I said before, Europe has dealt with the question of agricultural credit, and in Germany and France we have perhaps the two outstanding rural credit systems, by which money can be obtained at very low rates of interest.


Mr. BOURASSA:: And Italy.


William Thomas Lucas: Yes, Italy as well. In 1894 France passed the first fundamental law creating machinery for the provision of agricultural credit. Two years later, when the charter privilege of the Bank of France expired, it was renewed by the government only on condition that the bank should advance to the government forty million francs, free of interest, to be used in the subsidization of the rural credit banks. There was a further condition that the bank was to pay yearly a sum calculated at one-eighth of its circulation, but not to be 'less than two million francs, to be used for the same purpose. In reality this has amounted to between five and six million francs yearly, and this amount has been made available for agricultural credit. Loans are made to agricultural cooperative societies, with interest as low as 2 per cent. Let me pause here, Mr. Speaker, to say it might be well to insert a clause of this nature when we revise our Bank Act in 1933.
Just here I should like to read another short excerpt from the report of the United States commission:
Our rural population is justly entitled to receive credit direct from reserve banks in the same degree that urban population enjoys this advantage; and the method of bank organization should be such that residents of country districts can successfully overcome the disadvantages of their environment.
The general advice given the farmer today is to go in for mixed farming. I have tried to point out that credit is just as essential in agriculture as in any other industry. Our present banking system serves admirably the needs of industry and commerce, but it does not serve the present day needs of agriculture, though it is true that our banks do provide a certain amount of short term credit. It is also true that in 1926, after repeated urgings from this corner of the house, parliament passed the Farm Loan Act for the purpose of providing long term credit for farmers. There is however a gap between these two systems which might be termed intermediate credit, and with this my resolution proposes to deal. I refer to a system of credit for periods of from six months to three years.
Everyone who understands the needs of agriculture knows that a bank loan for from three to six months is of very little use to the man engaged in live stock production. It takes from one to two years, and sometimes even longer, properly to mature cattle, and under present conditions the farmer often finds that he is forced to throw his stock on the market at a time when it is not fully matured and often when prices are depressed. The very fact that Mr. Beatty, along with other financial interests, has seen fit to promote the Dominion Agricultural Credit Corporation Limited to supply the very form of credit I am suggesting, if I understand it correctly, is an added proof that there is such a need. I am confident, however, that the capitalisation of that corporation, which is $5,000,000, will prove totally inadequate to meet the needs, and I would suggest to the government that if they cannot see their way clear to set up an intermediate credit system of their own in competition with the private corporation, at least they cooperate with the Beatty plan by subscribing dollar for dollar. This will not only give financial support but will add to the importance of the organization and assure its permanence as an integral part of our financial structure rather than as an emergency measure. I think it will be admitted that this new corporation, backed by business interests such as these, would be carefully supervised and managed along strictly business lines, and with these precautions the government should be prepared to take a risk equal to that taken by private capital for the benefit of agriculture.
A few days ago, the right hon. the Prime Minister, speaking on the question of a central bank, quoted President Hoover as saying:
It is not possible for the debtor to borrow himself out of debt.
Agricultural Credits

While that statement taken by itself may be true, under our system where the large percentage of business is run on credit, it is or should be possible to borrow money at a reasonable rate of interest and by using that money in legitimate business, along with energy and skill, make sufficient profit to repay the loan and at the same time reduce the original indebtedness. That is the theory upon which business is conducted to-day and it was with that end in view that I introduced this resolution in the hope that a better system of credit might be evolved which would place agriculture in the same position as that which other industries now occupy in this respect. The' question of intermediate credits was introduced in a very able manner last year by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) and after debate was referred to the banking and commerce committee for further consideration. Unfortunately parliament dissolved soon afterwards and the matter was not dealt with. I trust this question may at least be referred to this committee for consideration, for it is my opininn that if agriculture is to survive it will require wholehearted cooperation of every interest in the country in the matter of working out a better and cheaper form of credit.
It is not my intention to debate this question further, but I hope the house will give to it the consideration which it merits.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the 'hon. member will have his resolution amended so that it may be referred to the committee on banking and commerce I think it would serve a very useful purpose and discussion could take place in the light of knowledge which we have as to the proposed operations of the credit organization to which I referred the other day. The experience in the United States in connection with a similar organization was that practically only ten per cent of the amount subscribed was used. It may well be that in the light of the information which will be forthcoming, the government will be enabled to assist in the work in a more practical manner than has heretofore been the case. In view of these observations, I trust the hon. gentleman will see his way clear to have the appropriate motion made and that the matter be referred to the committee on banking and commerce.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members were pleased with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the spirit in which he has received this resolution. After a very few remarks, I will move the amendment which he suggests.

While I am on my feet, I should like to say that this matter of credit for agriculture is one which should be settled as soon as possible. I intend to discuss this question from the viewpoint of a westerner because I am most familiar with the western situation. Western Canada has been settled by a body of men many of whom never borrowed any money in their lives until they went to that district. They were not familiar with any credit system under which they could borrow, but they have been educated by the agents of the mortgage companies and of the banks to do their business on credit. The moment they secured a recommendation for a patent for their homestead they were solicited by the agents, particularly of the mortgage corporations, to borrow money in order to improve their farms. From that time on they have done a large percentage of their business on credit. Perhaps there is nothing strange in that, because ninety per cent of the business in this country is carried on on a credit basis, but no attempt has been made to evolve a system of credit suitable to agriculture, particularly in western Canada, although I think the same remark would apply to the east.
Bankers have appeared before the committee on banking and commerce and have told us that the Bank Act contemplates that the business which they do should be only the financing of industry by the granting of short term loans, and I believe that that Is the intention of the act. The mortgage companies do not pretend to finance farmers except for long terms, and it has been generally admitted that there always is what the bankers term a barren area of credit. It is true that in many cases the bankers in western Canada have financed the farmer, and I agree with a recent statement by one of the past presidents of the Canadian Bankers' Association that the banks have loaned too much money to farmers in the west. That statement may be true, but the responsibility rests largely upon the banks themselves. I must be fair and state that this would apply only to certain banks; I have no desire to indict the bankers as a whole. The farmers could not have obtained these large loans unless the banks had been willing to grant them.
What the farmer needs is a system of credit which will be fairly constant, one which will not advance him more credit than he needs at certain times and withhold it at other times when he is badly in need of it. That is the trouble with the present credit system

Agricultural Credits
in western Canada; it makes credit much too easy to get at certain times. On many occasions farmers have been urged by local bank managers to borrow money for purposes for which they should never have borrowed it, and as a result many farmers have suffered. I have personal knowledge of men being persuaded to go into the ranching business. The local managers assured them that the banks would advance them sufficient money for the purpose, and what happened? The banks had to take security on everything they had, and before many years had passed the value of live stock dropped to such an extent that these men had to be sold out. That is not a proper banking policy; the Bank Act never contemplated that the banks of this country should go into that kind of business.
I think it is time we had in Canada a proper system of credit for agriculture. I do not like to come to parliament and criticize the action of the banks in any particular part of Canada, but the criticism which we have already heard this session proves the need of a system better suited to the requirements of the agricultural industry. I do not desire to take up the time of the house in a discussion of why the banks in western Canada have lost so much money- a point stressed by the bankers' association- but I do want to say that if they have lost money in western Canada it was their own fault. They have taken huge sums out of western Canada in the form of interest, and if they have lost money it is because of the poor policy they have followed in making their loans.
I want to quote very briefly from the report of the committee on banking and commerce of last year with reference to the matter of agricultural credits, which was referred to them. They say:
Two sessions of the committee were held, [DOT] during which this reference was under discussion.
As directed in the order of reference, the committee conducted a study of intermediate credits for agriculture, but owing to pressure of other work they have not been able to give it the attention so important a subject deserves.
Hr. C. S. Tompkins, the Inspector of Banks, was examined and requested to obtain sundry information.
It is recognized by the committee that the basic industry of agriculture is handicapped for want of such credit facilities as are called for by the resolution.
it is true that short term loans are taken care of by the banking system, and those covering long terms more or less by the Long Term Loan Act, and mortgage companies; but that, with the slow turnover of the farmers' business, the third type of credits as mentioned above is essential to his success.
Your committee, therefore, recommend that the subject is of sufficient importance that the matter be given attention by the Department of Finance, and if possible, bring it to the attention of a future parliament.
In the last paragraph of this report it is stated that the matter was to be brought to the attention of the Department of Finance. Officials of that department were asked to obtain certain information in regard to it, so that they should now have information which would be available to the committee in considering the matter. Therefore, without taking up any further time of the house, I would move:
That the motion be amended by adding the following words:
"and to that end that this question be referred to the select standing^ committee on banking and commerce, with instructions to consider and report thereon."
Mr. ALFRED'SPEAKM AN (Red Deer): The house will be as happy as I that the general acceptance of the motion as amended renders it unnecessary for me to say what I had intended to say. There are, however, three or four points which I wish to lay before the house in reference to the scope of this inquiry
By the proposed reference the committee on banking and commerce will be afforded an opportunity of carrying on an inquiry veiy essential at the present time, having to do with the credit system of this country as it applies to agriculture. The committee will have an opportunity not only of considering the motion itself, but of acquiring a better understanding of the proposed operation of what is popularly referred to as the Beatty plan, of which very little is at present known but concerning which vague surmises are floating throughout the country. It would br of benefit to the originators of the plan, to Canada and to agriculture, if that system were properly understood. But still more important, the committee will be given an opportunity of inquiring into another very important aspect of the matter, namely the present relationship between the banks and agriculture in Canada. It is not good for the banks, for agriculture or for the country generally that such a dispute as has now arisen should continue. Many statements and accusations have been made, and it is apparent that a complete misunderstanding and misapprehension prevails throughout Canada, particularly amongst those engaged in agriculture, as to the functions of our banking system as related to agriculture.
I hope that the motion will be understood in its broadest terms and that the scope of
Technical Education

the inquiry will be fairly wide. It is desirable that this misunderstanding be thoroughly cleared up so that we may be able to ascertain definitely and without peradventure whether the banks have been functioning as they should, whether the demands made by agriculture have been reasonable or unreasonable, and whether the statement made by the heads of the banks that credit has been given in the usual way and on the usual security is correct or not.
The committee will have an opportunity of perhaps recreating our credit system as it relates to that important branch of industry, agriculture, of obtaining a better and more complete understanding of the situation as it exists, of setting at rest much ill feeling, much misunderstanding, and of bringing about a greater degree of friendly cooperation between these two essential units in our whole social organization, finance and agriculture.
Motion as amended agreed to.



TECHNICAL EDUCATION


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville) moved:: Whereas the discontinuance of the federal grant in aid of technical education has imposed a heavy liability upon the provinces, which they find it difficult to sustain;
And whereas the future industrial and commercial development of Canada depend in large measure upon the creation of a well trained personnel;
Therefore be it resolved-that, in the opinion of this house, the grant should be continued at least for another ten years.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which I now propose to the house has been on the order paper for the last four years. It is needless for me to say that it has always been defeated. Perhaps this year it will meet a different fate. I am not going to utilize the forty minutes allowed to me according to the rules of the House of Commons. I shall be very brief; indeed, I do not believe my remarks will last more than five or six minutes. My motivating reason for curtailing my remarks on this very important subject emanates from the very sympathetic speech that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) made when the resolution was before the house last year as well as from the intimation in the speech from the throne that something would be done this year for technical education. Pending a statement from the Prime Minister as to the government policy with respect to technical education, I shall, as I have said, not utilize

my whole time but shall be as brief as possible.
In presenting this resolution I am absolutely certain that I am reopening a question that is not only of extreme importance to a very large proportion of the population of Canada but is also very closely connected with the welfare and prosperity of this Dominion, namely, federal government grants to technical education to aid industrial development.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the latter part of the resolution calls for a continuance of the technical education grant for a further period of ten years, implying that such a grant has been in effect during some previous period. How was technical education legislation first placed on the statute books of Canada, and what were the events leading up to that legislation? Hon. members are no doubt aware that technical education always has been and always will be a vital question in a country with such great potentialities in trade and commerce as Canada. For almost half a century this question has agitated the minds not only of those who direct our industries but also of those who are engaged in them. It has, in a word, been a most vital subject in those quarters where the need for skilled workmanship was found to be essential. Indeed, so rapid was the growth of public opinion in favour of more and better technical education that it soon became apparent that it was only a question of time when the matter would come up for discussion in the House of Commons. That anticipated discussion did come up some time in the year 1909, in which year a royal commission was appointed to investigate the whole subject of technical education. The commission consisted of seven members, who visited many parts of Europe, and the United States and held over one hundred meetings in the Dominion of Canada alone. When you consider, Mr. Speaker, that over 1,400 witnesses were heard in Canada alone, and that the total expense bill of the commission was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100,000, you will have some idea of the tremendous task which the commission had on its hands, a task that took about three years of investigation and study before the commission was finally in a position to submit its report to the House of Commons in 1913. In 1914 the great world war broke out and the matter was left in abeyance until after the armistice was signed. It was not long, however, before parliament took the question up with renewed vigour, which finally culminated in the act of 1919, now known as the Technical Education Act. That act provided for the expenditure of an aggregate sum of $10,000,000 over a period of

Export Act
ten years, to be paid to the provinces according to a graduated scale, as follows: in 1920, $700,000; 1921, $800,000; 1922, $900,000; 1923, $1,000,000; 1924, $1,100,000; and a like sum for each of the five succeeding years, ending with the fiscal year 1929. The sum of $10,000 was to be paid in each year to the government of each province and the remainder of the appropriation was to be allotted and paid in proportion to the population of each province respectively as determined by the last federal decennial census.
The money has been paid, Mr. Speaker, but the act is no longer available. The federal technical educational grants have been relegated, at least by the government that preceded this one, to the junk pile of forgotten things. I conclude with the hope that the present government will not relegate this act, as it was relegated last year, to the junk pile of forgotten things, but that it will take action to aid in the development of technical education as was intimated in the speech from the throne.


Right Hon.  R. B@: BENNETT (Prime Minister) :	I trust that the hon. gentleman will
withdraw his resolution. The government will take the appropriate action at the proper time in accordance with the Statement made in the speech from the throne at the opening of this session. There really is no purpose served by placing on the order paper a resolution with respect to a matter that has already been anticipated in the speech from the throne. The budget will disclose the action that will be taken.


Mr. LUCHKO  VICH@: I should like to let
the right hon. gentleman know that I had this resolution on the order paper before the speech from , the throne was delivered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Michael Luchkovich: I beg leave, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw the motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thank you very much.
Motion withdrawn.



EXPORT ACT


Mr. S. C. ROBINSON (WestEssex) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the statute entitled An Act to amend the Export Act, being chapter 19, 20-21, George Y, passed during the first session of 1930, should be repealed, and in substitution therefor a treaty should be negotiated for which Canada will get something in return for the loss of revenue this country is suffering in consequence of our good-will gesture, which apparently United States does not appreciate.
He said:	When the bill to amend the
Export Act was passed by parliament on March 25, 1930, strong objection was raised on the ground that Canada should get something by way of treaty in return for the loss of revenue, and also the loss of legitimate business in this country. In this connection I might quote from the remarks that were made by hon. gentlemen now sitting in this house. The right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), then leader of the opposition, at page 630 of Hansard of March 14, 1930, said:
We have failed to avail ourselves of one of the greatest offers that could be made by one nation to another, namely, to make reciprocal the operations of a treaty. They say, you give us this, we will give you the same. Moreover, sir, I might again point out that the proper method of international contract is by treaty or convention. As I pointed out a moment ago, this parliament cannot legislate for the United States of America. The United States Secretary of State said: Let us make a new convention amending the old convention.
The hon. the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) is reported at page 873 of Hansard of March 24, 1930, as follows:
It seems to me that if the mind of the Prime Minister radically changed in August last, as I understand it did, then there was ample time for him to negotiate an amendment to that treaty under which reciprocal duties and obligations would be imposed upon the governments of the two countries. It seems to me that such a treaty would have been far more consistent with the self-respect and dignity of this country than to place ourselves in the position. as seems to be the view of many of the leading newspapers of the United States, where we have been compelled to pass legislation because of the insistent demands of the United States that we should do so.
And again at page 875,1 find the following:
Therefore I say that we should have either a reciprocal agreement in the form of a treaty or some form of reciprocal legislation, which would give to Canada the same protection from smugglers from the United States as the United States now ask us to give with respect to smugglers of Canadian products into the United States.
In Hansard of March 24, 1930, pages 875-6, the present Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) is reported as follows:
I entirely agree with him (the member for St. Lawrenee-St. George) who took exactly the same attitude, that in justice to Canada we might well have preceeded by way of reciprocal legislation, either a treaty or a convention, or concurrent legislation as suggested by the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George, because in that way we could have obtained for Canada some rights in return for what we are now giving up at the request of the United States.
And further at page 876:
"In other words the Post (Washington) asks what does Canada get for giving up this revenue and for the loss to private interest in this business, and for the extra expenditure which
Export Act

will be put upon. this country by this legislation? What is the quid pro quo? Do we get anything in return, or are we to draw the conclusion that this legislation, like the Prime Minister's tariff legislation, is a made-in- Washington policy, or a don't-provoke-Washington policy-not a Canadian measure, but a United States measure?
The right hon. the leader of the opposition, the then Prime Minister, is reported at page 909 of Hansard of March 24, 1930, as follows:
However, now that it has been decided that we shall continue our efforts to get a treaty that we hope will appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite as well as to ourselves, we shall make a further effort to see that the application of the treaty to merchandise generaly is taken, full note of, and, that the treaty goes as far as it is possible to go to improve the conditions of dealing with the problem of goods being smuggled between the two countries.
I may say that about that time the then Prime Minister made an announcement to the house that already he had considered the question of making a treaty with the United States in connection of the cancellation of exports.
, I wish to place on Hansard a quotation from the Toronto Mail and Empire. This is a report of an interview with Clarence Darrow, the famous criminal lawyer of Chicago:
Darrow Sees No Need For Export Ban United States Rich "Enough to Take Care Of Its Own Laws," He Asserts Is Visiting Toronto
England Should Not Pay War Debts To Republic, He Contends
Toronto, July 26.-Canada should not concern itself with preventing liquor from being exported to the United States, Clarence Darrow, famous criminal lawyer of the United States and anti-prohibitionist, stated in an interview here. "The United States is quite wealthy enough to take care of its own laws," he said.
"So Much Richer"
"Why should Canada spend it9 money when the United States is so much richer and can better afford the expense?" continued Mr. Darrow.
On the question of war debts, Mr. Darrow declared England should never have taken on herself the payment of war debts to the United States. "We were in the same war," he said, "and we should help to pay for it. If it is not the debt of the United States, we should never have been in the war."
"I am awfully sorry for England," Mr. Darrow said. "She has packed up the whole expense of the war. Her debt should be cancelled, for she has fought the world's battles.
I wish to make reference to the Wickersham report, which caused considerable comment throughout the United States and Canada. At page 25 of this report I find the following:
It would be a mistake to assume that the cutting off of clearances of liquor from Canada to the United States has achieved its helpful intention.

If this is the conclusion arrived at in the United States after two years of investigation by the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement why continue the ban on exports to the United States? What have we received in return for Canada's gesture of neighbourly good will? First there was the Hawley-Smoot tariff, which as hon. members know prevented nearly all our agricultural and dairy products from entering the United States. That tariff legislation affected my constituency very seriously. Thanks, however, to the efforts of the present government and the new dumping clauses, the farmers and, market gardeners in my riding are happy and contended to know they have a home market and that the surplus products of the United States will not be dumped here in competition with our products.
Then there is the commuter problem, a very serious matter in my constituency and in other border points of the Dominion of Canada. On April 1, 1927 a joint agreement was negotiated by the Hon. Vincent Massey entitled General Order No. 86, which for the information of the house I should like to place on Hansard. I may say that very few Canadians seem to understand what the general order meant. During 1930 this order practically became null and void. Thousands of residents of the border cities had paid their head tax and the cost of their vises. These charges were for head tax $8; vise S10, birth certificate $250 and four photographs, $1, making a total of $21.50. That was practically confiscated from the Canadian commuter. In 1927 there were as many as 15,000 commuters living in the border cities and working in Detroit and district. I venture to say that to-day their number would not be more than 2,500. This marked reduction has seriously affected our community. But the United States authorities are still combing the country to deport Canadians who, they claim, illegally entered the United States some years ago. For the benefit of the house let me read this general order 86 of the United States Department of Labour:
United States Department of Labour Bureau of Immigration Washington
April 1, 1927.
General Order No. 86 Subject: Land border crossing procedure
1.	Hereafter aliens residing in foreign contiguous countries and entering the United States to engage in existing employment or to seek employment in this country will not be considered as visiting the United States

Export Act
temporarily as tourists, or temporarily for business or pleasure, under any provisions of the immigration law which exempt visitors from complying with certain requirements thereof; that is, they will be considered as aliens of the "immigrant" class.
2.	However, the following aliens of the said "immigrant" class residing in foreign contiguous countries and who are now enjoying the border crossing privilege may continue so to enjoy it upon the payment of head tax, provided such head tax was assessible on aliens entering permanently at the time of original admission and, provided further, that they are not coming to seek employment.
A.	Aliens whose original admission occurred prior to June 3, 1921.
B.	Natives of non-quota countries whose original admission occurred prior to July 1, 1924.
C.	Natives of quota countries whose original admission occurred subsequent to June 2, 1921, and, prior to May 11, 1922, who at the time of such admission had resided in the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Mexico, or countries of Central or South America, or adjacent islands, for a period of one year.
D.	Natives of quota countries whose original admission occurred subsequent to May 10, 1922, and prior to July 1, 1924, who at the time of such admission had resided in the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Mexico, or countries of Central or South America, or adjacent islands, for a period of five years.
3.	Aliens of all nationalities of the "immigrant" class whose original admission occurred subsequent to June 30, 1924, will be required to meet all provisions of the immigration laws applying to aliens of the "immigrant" class. Aliens of this class already enjoying the border crossing privilege, however, will be granted a reasonable time, not to exceed six months from June 1, 1927, within which to obtain immigration visas and otherwise comply with the laws.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: When the house rose at six o'clock I was reading general order No. 86 of the United States Department of Labour, in connection with the commuter situation. The remainder of the order is as follows:
4.	Aliens who have already complied with the requirements of the immigration laws and this general order may be permitted to continue to enjoy the border crossing privilege.
5.	Aliens who have complied with the requirements of this general order governing permanent admission will be considered as having entered for permanent residence.
G. The use and issuance of identification cards to all classes of aliens entitled to same will continue as heretofore.
7. Identification cards held by or issued to aliens of the "immigrant" class shall be rubber-stamped as follows:	
8.	Identification cards held by or issued to
aliens of the "non-immigrant" class shall be rubber-stamped as follows:	
9.	To insure uniformity stamps furnished by the bureau, only, shall be used and blank spaces, including that for signature, shall be filled in by the use of indelible pencil.
10.	All identification cards heretofore issued, held by aliens who can not, or do not, meet the requirements of law, regulations and this order, will be taken up and cancelled upon an incoming trip of the holder and appropriate action taken.
11.	The work of validating outstanding cards should proceed slowly, systematically, steadily and persistently, and in such a manner as to avoid confusion, congestion, interference with proper routine administration and the giving of just grounds for complaint upon the part of the travelling public.
12.	The status of holders of identification cards shall be enquired into periodically, preferably every six months from date stamped, where practicable, but in any event not less frequently than once a year. When enquiry has been so made, it will be evidenced by a notation to show date of such enquiry and initials of the officer upon the reverse of the card. A hen the holder of a "non-immigrant" identification card qualifies as an "immigrant," a new identification card shall be issued, stamped to show the correct status.
That order was perfectly satisfactory, and it remained in force until 1930, when it was treated as a scrap of paper. The cards were taken from the holders even if they had been out of a position only a month or so; other technicalities cropped up, until the number of commuters was cut down to the figures I gave this afternoon. During 1930 this order became practically null and void, and thousands of the residents of the border cities and other parts of Canada, who had paid their head tax and secured a vise, lost their papers and had no money returned, with the result that in many cases they lost their positions as well. To add insult to injury, many were deported for a year and a day, with the warning that if they returned to the United States they would be put in prison. Compare this treatment with that accorded residents of the United States working in Canada.
The third point upon which I wish to touch, in order to show that the United States shows no good will towards Canada following what was supposed to be a neighbourly act on our part, is this:	We all remember the drastic
action of the United States coastguards, who fired upon Canadian vessels, with resultant loss of life. One case was that of the I'm Alone, and the other case that of the Josephine K., when Captain William P. Cluett of Lunenburg was killed. I have in my hand a statement showing the estimated annual loss to national revenue and to the distillery and brewing industries which has
Export Act

resulted from the amendment to the Customs Act passed last year, prohibiting the export of liquor and beer to the United States. I have also added a careful estimate of the business Which has been lost to the trades manufacturing supplies, such as glass bottles,
wooden and cardboard containers, labels, wrappers and so on, together with the loss to the farmers in regard to grain, the loss to labour and to the railways. These figures are from the Bureau of Statistics, and can be readily confirmed. They are as follows:



ESTIMATED ANNUAL LOSS TO NATIONAL REVENUE AND TO DISTILLING AND BREWING INDUSTRIES AS A RESULT OF AMENDMENT TO CUSTOMS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Exports of Liquors and Beer (Duty Paid) from Canada to United States for Year ended March 31, 1930.
Equivalent at average strength, 17 under proof to
Whisky, Gin and Other Spirits-
(Canadian Produce) 1,076, 189 imp. gals...	893,236 pf. gals. Excise Duty,
$9.00 per pf. gal.
Amount collected in Excise and Customs Taxes
[Stage Direction]
Ale, Beer and Porter- (Foreign Produce)
(Canadian Produce)
(Foreign Produce)
Equivalent at average strength, 23 under proof, to
163,414 imp. gals. 125,828 pf. gals. Average Customs
Duty, $9.65 per pf. gal.
1,449,122	"	Excise Duty,
12ic. per gal.
2,117	"	Customs Duty,
42c. per gal.
1,214,240
181,140
[Stage Direction]
Cessation of the Above Exports Represents the Following Losses to the Canadian Distilling
Brewing and Other Industries.
Distilling Industry	1,076,189 gals.=538,094 cases at $30.00.
Brewing Industry	1,449,122 gals. = 724,561 cases at 2.50.
Glass Industry	1,262,655 doz. bottles at 75c	
Boxes and Containers. Labels, Wrappers, etc.
Grain	
Railway Freight

[Stage Direction]
Total	$ 20,018,222
Excise and Customs Duty	 9,435,393
Total	$ 29,453,615
A despatch from Ottawa, dated January 20, 1931, reads as follows:
Officials of the Department of National Revenue, after a study of the excise returns, to-day estimated that Canada has already suffered a loss of revenue of over $15,000,000 as a result of the stoppage of the direct flow of Canadian liquor across the border.
I might remind the house that this is three-quarters of the amount voted for unemployment at the special session last September. The house may be interested in the fact that for several years following prohibition the United States exported to Canada quantities of liquors and fermented wines. The figures are as follows:

Liquors (including whiskey, brandy,	Fermented
gin and rum)	wines
Proof Gals.	Impl. Gals.
1922	
65,737	10,5451923	
28,045	7,1681924	
10,582	1,7931925	
3,623	7561926	
2,633	2801927	
2,168	1,8641928	
2,011	1901929	
1,729	331930	(figures not available) 27
The above figures have been supplied also by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. In 1928 the United States exported to the Bahamas 20,892 proof gallons of whiskey valued at £20,367, and in 1929, 3,679 proof

Animal Contagious Diseases
gallons of whiskey valued at £1,272. It would be well to bear in mind that these exports are made from a country supposed to be as dry as the Sahara desert.
In conclusion I cannot see any good reason why the amendment to the Customs Act of March, 1930, should not be repealed when the Wickersham commission stated that it would be a mistake to assume that the cutting off of the clearances of liquor from Canada to the United States has achieved the hopeful intention. Reports appear every day that the United States is still getting its liquor, but this government is not receiving any revenue therefrom at a time when our national treasury shows a heavy deficit.
Motion negatived.

Mr. MARTIAL RHEAUME (St. Johns-Iberville) (Translation) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the compensation of $60 provided for each head of cattle, male or female, as stipulated in chapter 6, section 14, subsection 2 (a) of the revi^fed statutes of Canada, 1927, be raised to $90 and that the compensation of $150 stipulated in section 2 (b) of the same section be raised to $180.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the house will not hesitate to give its approval to this resolution. In my opinion, farmers whose cattle have been subjected to the tuberculin test, in Quebec or throughout the country, for the last four or five years, did not receive an indemnity proportionate to the valuation of the cattle slaughtered. It was in 1927 that we inaugurated in the county of St. Johns-Iberville, which is situated south of the St. Lawrence, the tuberculin test. The highest price paid for cattle worth at least $100, was $38. I therefore think that the farmer was not sufficiently compensated for the losses he sustained, and that we should increase the indemnity from $60 to $90 as proposed, and from $150 to $180 for thoroughbreds. The remuneration for cattle that undergo the tuberculin test and are slaughtered, is only two-thirds of their valuation. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) could verify this statement by looking over the statistics in his possession. Most of the cattle I think which were slaughtered, at least in my county and to my knowledge, have never been paid, on an average, more than $30. You will readily understand that it is difficult to apply a system for the tuberculin test. It has happened, in my own constituency, in the spring during April, May, June and July, after cows had been wintered and at least 8 or 9 dollars per month had
been spent per head, that farmers were obliged to slaughter them and only received $28 or $30 per head, althought the cows were in a fit condition to give good returns. In the present instance, I do not think that the government proved themselves generous, the act should be amended within the shortest delay possible because, as everybody knows, agriculture has already suffered too much. It is but fair and reasonable that the act should be amended and applied without further delay. There are a number of members in the house who represent rural counties. I hope that they will share my views and support this resolution.


Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I listened
with special interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr Rheaume). This question embodied in the resolution was often raised in the Quebec legislature where I had the privilege of sitting. In the course of the 1929 session, I introduced a motion which was entirely in keeping with the views expressed by the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville. We then contended that the indemnity paid to farmers whose cattle had been slaughtered, as reactors was not sufficient, and the legislature unanimously adopted a resolution requesting the Quebec government to come to an understanding with the Dominion government in order to grant a more substantial indemnity to farmers. Unfortunately, I regret to state, that the Quebec government would not abide by the resolution adopted by the legislature and refused to make arrangements with the Dominion government in order to settle this question. I am amazed that the hon. member for St. Johns did not mention this fact to the house. This refusal justifies the Dominion government in not intervening as long as the Quebec government does not express its desire to cooperate with this government to settle this problem.
To-day, the question is more complicated than it was then, since the Quebec government at its last session had a half-measure enacted for the purpose of increasing, as it may see fit, the indemnity to be granted to farmers whose cattle are slaughtered. I think that this question should be better studied and more time given to its consideration. It is, at present, quite a complicated and difficult question and, as stated in the Quebec house, it is one that concerns not only one province but many others. Since the Quebec government has, this year, stepped in to pay part of the indemnity as agreed upon-at least, that was the pledge given by the prime minister of Quebec during the election which



Animal Contagious Diseases
I have reason to remember-that is to grant some part of that indemnity to farmers whose cattle were slaughtered, it is but fair to ask the hon. member for St. Johns-Iber-ville to postpone this matter so as to allow the Quebec government and other provincial governments to meet and agree upon equitable terms, and thereby satisfy the farmers as to the indemnity requested.


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
second the resolution of the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume), and congratulate him for having had the courage of raising this question, although knowing that his chances of success were small, as we have just been made aware, the reason for this is that we sit on one side of the house where governmental favours are seldom distributed. The hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) recalled that he had personally moved such a resolution when he was leader of the opposition at Quebec. No one among us will doubt the good intentions of the hon. Postmaster General. Personally, I have always admired his courage; I have always been one of those Liberals who willingly acknowledge the praise due to an opponent. However, in answer to the criticism directed against the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville: that the Quebec government should have had a conference with the Dominion government so as to come to an agreement, I regret to have to tell the hon. Postmaster General that, perhaps, his old fighting spirit has vanished and turned to an incomprehensible tameness since he occupies an important post in the administration of this country. I expected that the hon. Postmaster General, after being sworn in as a member of the cabinet, and as soon as he made his appearance in the houses- he was so honourable and good-natured, he had always championed the interests of the farming class, guided by Conservative principles, as he understood them-I expected, I say, that at the first opportunity, he would endeavour to convince his colleagues and get them to bring down a measure for the purpose of granting a more generous indemnity to the farmers and thus help this class of people which, in his own words, were so dear to him. I, therefore, cannot approve the stand taken by the hon. Postmaster General, that he is waiting for the Quebec government

which in no way can be called upon to take a hand under the circumstances, since the tuberculin test is a question which concerns the Dominion government-that he is waiting for the Quebec government to confer with Ottawa so as to come to an understanding.


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon.
member allow me?


Vincent Dupuis: With pleasure.


Arthur Sauvé: I know that
the hon. member for Laprairie is too fair-minded that I should ever suspect him of wanting to misinterpret my thoughts as to what I stated a moment ago and also as to the attitude I took when in Quebec. I rather think that it was through an oversight that he made such a statement with reference to the Quebec legislature. Personally, I am not waiting for the Quebec government to act.


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: Is that a question?


Arthur Sauvé: I wish to
rectify a statement, and I have the permission of the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville.


Vincent Dupuis: With pleasure.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: No speech.


Arthur Sauvé: Since the hon.
member for Laprairie allows me, I cannot see why the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) objects. The legislature ordered the Quebec government to come to an understanding with the Dominion government on the question of indemnity increase, and I answered.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Mr. Speaker, I
rise to a point of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would remind
the Postmaster General that he has already spoken to the resolution.


Arthur Sauvé: That is the
way, I am well aware.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to show all deference possible to the Postmaster General, that is why I allowed him to make a second speech to rectify the first. I do not want to take advantage of an opponent.
I therefore shall proceed with my remarks. I was unable to make out what the hon. Postmaster General wished to rectify. If I am not mistaken, he Stated that he was waiting for the Quebec government to communicate with the Dominion government.


Arthur Sauvé: I beg your
pardon, I never said that.


Vincent Dupuis: I accept the
hon. Postmaster General's word.


Arthur Sauvé: May I rectify
this matter?


Vincent Dupuis: Certainly.


Arthur Sauvé: I stated that
I was awaiting some move by the Quebec government. The legislature declared itself in March, 1929: it ordered-

Animal Contagious Diseases
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Order, order.


Arthur Sauvé: The legislature ordered the Quebec government to come to an understanding with Ottawa in order to settle the question of indemnity. The legislative assembly did its duty, but the government did not.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Speaker,
the hon. Postmaster General, commenting upon the action taken by the legislative assembly, stated that it had adopted a halfmeasure. I wish to state, to the credit of the Quebec government-although not obliged but aware of the inaction of the Dominion government-that it took upon its shoulders the responsibility of helping the farmers in regard to this question of indemnity for cattle slaughtered as a result of the tuberculin test:


Joseph-François Laflèche: When?


Vincent Dupuis: At the last
session held in Quebec.


Arthur Sauvé: How?


Vincent Dupuis: If my hon.
friends on the right would only be patient, I would be very grateful to them. It would afford me the opportunity of making some comments this evening.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: We shall
have them undergo the tuberculin test.


Vincent Dupuis: The Quebec
legislature, at the last session, voted a measure by which it undertakes, to pay part of the indemnity when cattle are slaughtered, on condition-this is quite legitimate-that the farmer, in order to qualify for that part of the indemnity which is from the provincial government, must, as far as possible, purchase cattle of the same value as that slaughtered. This indemnity should come from the Dominion government. The latter did not think proper to grant it. However, I am quite certain that if the country had maintained the Liberal government in office, at the last election, there would have been no necessity for the Quebec government to adopt such a measure which the hon. Postmaster General unfairly branded a half-measure.


Arthur Sauvé: Why not at
the last session?


Vincent Dupuis: The hon.
Postmaster General might ask the same question many times and he knows the answer without my telling him: that Paris was not built in one day. May I put the same question to my hon. friend? I recall that during the last election my hon. friend, who is now, Postmaster General,
[DOT] 22110-1091
travelled through his county, like all Conservative candidates in Quebec, and probably throughout the country, condemning the Liberal government and criticising it for not being generous towards the farmers when compensating them for their slaughtered cattle. They carried on a bitter fight over this question, when tired of discussing butter, they took up the indemnity as regards the tuber-culine test. They pledged themselves-indeed, that was our opponents tactics to increase the number of their pledges, forgetting that those whom they addressed were levelheaded and keen-minded people for whom they should show some deference-they pledged themselves to settle that question if they assumed office. To-day, we find that, notwithstanding the pledges made, although thej'- endeavoured to prove that if the farmers were suffering from depression it was due to the negligence of the Liberal government, notwithstanding these facts, the Conservative party once in power neglect to fulfil their pledges. The Conservative party promised that once in office, they would settle those questions-the most pressing problems are surely those that refer to farming, which is the foundation of the whole social fabric. They have now been in power for ten months; and when this evening a member representing the farming class, the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume) rises in his seat to move a resolution, an hon. minister has the hardihood to rebuke the member for bringing up this question and asks him to withdraw his motion.


Arthur Sauvé: I beg your
pardon.


Vincent Dupuis: He calls on
him not to press his motion, but to postpone all discussion until the Dominion and provincial governments confer in the hope that the questions might be put off indefinitely.
I said that the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville was right in raising this question. In making such a statement, I am in no way influenced by partisanship, for like himself and many other members of the house, I have the privilege of representing the farming class. I am aware, as my hon. friends on your right, sir, are, that the farmers are suffering. We listened to interesting speeches in the house, on the sad plight of the western farmers. It is perhaps in order that representatives of the eastern farmers be heard from in regard to the financial state of the farming community in Quebec, Ontario and the maritime provinces. If they do not complain it is not because they do not feel the depression which prevails at present among all classes of society, but it is because they underi712
Animal Contagious Diseases

stand what our opponents do not seem to realize, namely, that the Liberal government, which was at the helm of public affairs previous to the last election, is not responsible for conditions existing to-day. May I repeat what I told my constituents: that the present economic situation which is a cause of distress to so many Canadians cannot be traced back to the government of this country. I wish to state that the depression prevailing is not due to the Conservative government. It might be said, perhaps, that the present administration which made so many pledges is responsible for the aggravated situation. May I point out, sir, in this connection, the difference between the tactics of our opponents and ours during the last election, our appeals to the people were founded on facts, sound and wise judgment, While their appeals were simply based on sentiment, while fully realizing that the Liberals were not responsible for the economic crisis. They were fully aware that such was not the fact. To-day, when in office, how do they act? I plainly ask the hon. Postmaster General to admit that if it be impossible to entirely remedy the present economic depression, at least the resolution of the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville aims at alleviating the present plight of farmers. I am quite aware that the hon. Postmaster General is somewhat annoyed at this resolution being introduced in the house, ' when deep in his heart he knows better than anyone that he should, himself, as a member of the Dominion cabinet, have discussed this matter with his colleagues and presented a bill bearing on this question. In acting thus, he would have given proof that he wished to fulfil the pledges he gave at the last election. May I suggest to the Postmaster General-


Arthur Sauvé: Mr. Speaker,
may I address the house.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): No, no.


Arthur Sauvé: May I inquire
from the hon. .member-


Vincent Dupuis: I would like
to have my full time and I would therefore ask the Postmaster General to allow me to finish my remarks.


Arthur Sauvé: I ask the hon. member to tell the truth.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Unless the hon.
member speaking permits a question, another hon. member may not interrupt.


Vincent Dupuis: The hon.
member has no right to state that I did not tell the truth.

Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Withdraw.


Vincent Dupuis: I suggest to the hon. Postmaster General, in all fairness, that he should withdraw that expression.


Arthur Sauvé: I state that I
told the truth when I requested the hon. member for Laprairie to tell the truth as to what concerns me. The hon. member for Laprairie has not the right to attribute to me what I have never said, he has not th'e right to state in the house that I do not carry out the pledges which I give.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Order, order!


Vincent Dupuis: If those are
the words which I used, I gladly withdraw them, because I have much respect for the hon. Postmaster General. What I did say, is that I feel certain that the hon. Postmaster General will insist on fulfilling his pledges. In closing my remarks, I would suggest to him that instead of blaming the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville for having introduced this resolution, he should confer immediately with his colleagues and the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) so as to have legislation passed by the house in order to help the farming class, something similar to the resolution of the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville.


Mr. F. H. PICKEL (Brome-Missisquoi) (Translation):: I am very much interested in
the indemnity paid to the farmers by the government for the loss of tuburculin tested cattle. As regards the first test that was made in my section of the province, we were adequately paid; the valuation was reasonable, but in the subsequent tests the valuation was in many cases too low. I am in perfect accord with the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume) in respect to the valuation of cattle at a maximum of $90 for cross breeds and $180 for thoroughbreds, but throughout the country there are many cross breeds that are not worth $90 and there are many thoroughbreds that are not worth $180, and I think the amount be left to the discretion of the veterinary who makes the test.


Mr. GOULET:: It is left already.


Follin Horace Pickel: This is a business proposition and no private individual going into a thing of this kind could make a uniform valuation on this kind of cattle.
The hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville and the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) quoted me as saying that I was in favour of the farmers getting their extra one-third for the cattle they had lost. I have no



IS, 1981

[Stage Direction]
Animal Contagious Diseases
objection to the hon. members alleging what I said, but I take exception to their citing the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) as saying that I was circulating around the country the statement that he was in agreement with me. Such is not the case. I never spoke to the Prime Minister about the. matter and he never signified his intention to me in that respect.
So far as the measure proposes an increase in the valuation of the cattle slaughtered, subject to the qualification I have made, I am in perfect accord with it and would support it.
Alfred Goulet: Mr. Speaker, as representative of one of the finest agricultural sections of Eastern Ontario, I will support the motion presented by the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume), because I believe it to be in the interest of the whole country. I have closely studied the question and I can state that the farmer is certainly not sufficiently compensated for the slaughter of his cattle. It is spring time when these cattle are first tested, a time when the milch cow produces the most, and yet when it is slaughtered the price paid is only that of beef-meat. Generally, at that time, the milch cow is not fit for market purpose, it is however fit to give good returns to the farmer. One must not forget that the government does not pay the two thirds of the S60 allotted for an ordinary cow. As the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville stated, the farmer only receives $28, or $30 to $32 for each animal. Not only should this resolution be adopted, but the act should be retroactive, that is in the counties where the test has been carried out the farmers should be further compensated because in replacing the cattle slaughtered they were put to heavy expenses.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of shocking some hon. members to your right-seeing that I represent a Montreal constituency composed mostly of workingmen-I wish to state that agricultural questions, and the farmers' interests are dear to me because I was brought up on a farm, and I have never forgotten my early years. One reason for being so attached to the farm, is that my father was one of those who laboured unceasingly to improve the lot of the farming class in Quebec. The resolution which has just been submitted to the consideration of the house, and which was so ably presented by the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume) deserves not only the approval and support of the representatives of the farming class but also
that of a representative of the working class. I therefore take pride in supporting this resolution, at this time when we are passing through a period of depression, and from which farmers are not exempt. In my opinion, the farming class deserves our deepest sympathy. For a number of years the tuberculin test has been applied in this country, and on numerous occasions, assisted by some representatives of the farming class, we requested the government to increase the indemnity granted to farmers. Two thirds of the value is not sufficient to compensate farmers for the loss of cows fit to give them better returns than if they were sold for market purposes. The government through its numerous pledges during the last election, undertook to help the farming class. The hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Sauve) for one, travelled over his county stating: "If you do me the honour of electing me to represent you in parliament, my first duty will be to help the farming class." The hon. member gave us a summary of his admirable behaviour in the Quebec legislature. He could have dispensed himself with talking about his doings while in Quebec. The Quebec government realized its duty when it found out that the Dominion government was opposed to granting farmers a sufficient indemnity to cover the loss of their cattle. It strikes me that if the hon. Postmaster General had been in earnest during the last election, his first duty in the house would have been to present a bill purporting to increase the indemnity granted' to farmers, especially at a time of economic depression. The farmers are much affected by this depression. The hon. Postmaster General is well aware that one of his friends was charged, in the Quebec house with bringing into the county of Laval-Two Mountains tuberculous cattle and selling them to the farmers of that county, thus spreading the disease. This was a more serious offence than one is apt to realize at first sight. In order to make some compensation for the offence committed by his friend, it seems to me that he should have been the first to rise in the house and move the resolution which the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume) had the courage to present for the purpose of assisting the farmers he represents here with so much dignity and honour. I therefore wish to state again that 1 am strongly in favour of this resolution. I trust that the government will realize the propriety of our comments and that, at this session, it will present a bill purporting to increase the indemnities granted for all cattle slaughtered owing to the tuberculin test.
Animal Contagious Diseases


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I invite your attention to the terms of the motion now under discussion. Resolution No. 23 on the order paper is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the compensation of $60 provided for each head of cattle, male or female, as stipulated in chapter
6.	section 14, subsection 2(a) of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, be raised to $90 and that the compensation of $150 stipulated in section 2(b) of the same section be raised to $180.
My objection is that if the resolution passed in its present form an expenditure of public money would be required. I am aware that opinions may be expressed by motions, but not on a motion sudh as the present one. Paragraph 358 in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms is in part as follows:
Motions advocating public expenditure, or the imposition of a charge, if the motion be framed in sufficiently abstract or general terms, can be entertained, and agreed to by the house.
The present resolution if passed, however, would express a positive opinion of the house that the action outlined in the resolution should be taken, and that the expenditures therein mentioned dhould foe made. I submit it is beyond the powers of any hon. member to place such a resolution before the house.


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri):: I should like to speak to the point of order raised by the minister. First I should like to know if the objection should not have come from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), who has the right to introduce such a measure. In Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms I find at page 63, paragraph 549, the following sentence:
The rule also applies to releasing or compounding any sum of money due to the crown and to the imposition of any state tax upon the people, but not to pecuniary penalties necessary to the operation of a bill.
If after a tuberculin test of an animal it is found necessary to slaughter it, to a certain extent a penalty is exacted by the department. For that reason I submit that the present resolution does not involve the expenditure of money but rather the increase of a penalty which already exists in a law on the statute book. I submit the point of order is not well taken. If the resolution involved expenditure. of money by the crown or any transaction of a monetary nature I would say the objection was well taken, and that a private member should not have brought the resolution before the house. But the present resolution, as I have stated, merely provides an increase in a penalty already imposed by a statute.


Charles Gavan Power: During the past five or six years resolutions of a similar nature have been brought before the house, and I think on some occasions a similar objection was taken to that now raised by the minister. For instance, there 'was a resolution proposing the expenditure of about
310,000,060 on highways, another for the expenditure of a large sum of money for technical education, and another for the relief of unemployment. Those resolutions all came before the house on previous occasions and the same point of order was raised. Probably in the strictest sense of the word the point is well taken, but on the other hand I think hon. members will agree that the usage and custom of late years has been to permit debate on such resolutions. Paragraph 55S in the rules which have been quoted states:
Motions advocating public expenditure, or the imposition of a charge, if the motion be framed in sufficiently abstract or general terms, can be entertained and agreed to by the house.
The resolution with which we are now dealing begins with the words: "That in the opinion of this house." The construction is of a general character; the house is not bound by the resolution. If passed it merely expresses an opinion.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not agree with that.


Charles Gavan Power: The house is not bound by
the resolution. The minister knows of dozens of resolutions which have passed this house but have never received legislative sanction or been enacted into law. I recall one occasion when without a dissenting voice a resolution was passed in favour of proportional representation. Time and again such resolutions have been passed.


Hugh Guthrie: That resolution did not
involve the expenditure of money. My objection is based on the fact that the present resolution involves a money vote.


Charles Gavan Power: My point is that the resolution if passed represents merely an expression of opinion.


Paul Mercier: 
Pierre Édouard Blondin: When the question was
raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) I was looking into the rules myself.
I was of opinion that if the present resolution was not a violation of the rules and practice of the house it was very close to it. Several members have quoted paragraph 558 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. This, a repetition of May's statement at page 518 of the thirteenth edition, is as follows:
Motions advocating public expenditure, or the imposition of a charge, if the motion be framed in sufficiently abstract or general terms, can be entertained, and agreed to by the house. Resolutions of this nature are permissible because, having no operative effect, no grant is made or burden imposed by their adoption.
I think this resolution goes further than that. It is practically an order to the house. It sets out the amount of compensation paid now, and says that in the opinion of the house that compensation should be raised to particular and stipulated sums. If the motion were agreed to, I should think the government would be bound to act on it. If on the other hand the resolution had said that the government should consider doing so and so, it would be in terms broad enough to come within the usages of the house and the rules.
I must rule that the resolution as at present framed is not one that can be introduced by a private member, and is therefore out of order.



TREATY OF VERSAILLES


Peter Heenan: Whereas, the Dominion of Canada is a signatory to the articles of peace of the Treaties of Versailles, thereby subscribing to the principle of a maximum working day of eight hours;
Therefore be it resolved that this house is of the opinion that the government of Canada should take appropriate steps to ensure, throughout Canada, the fulfilment of our treaty obligations and conventions arising out of the peace treaty, relating to hours of work.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it will be noticed that this resolution does not direct the government to take any specific steps but to take appropriate steps to ensure throughout Canada a maximum working day of eight hours. No doubt lion, members will recall the treaty of peace signed at Versailles on June 38, 1919. Part XIII, known as the labour section, lays down certain principles governing a maximum working day and a maximum working week. That treaty was signed on behalf of Canada by the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden. Arising out of the treaty a conference was held in Washington in October, 1919, and again the government of Canada was represented. At the conference the principle of the eight hour day was accepted and recommended to the respective governments of the several countries that were there interested and represented. For the information of the house I will read that section one of the Treaty of Versailles embodying the principle of the eight hour day:
Whereas the League of Nations has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such a peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice;
And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required: as, for example, by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum Avorking day and week, the regulation of the labour supply, the prevention of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment, the protection of children, young persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own, recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organization of vocational and technical education and other measures;
Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the "way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries:
The high contracting parties, moved by sentiments of justice and humanity, as well as by the desire to secure the permanent peace of the world, agree to the following:
Then follows chapter 1, dealing with the establishment of a permanent organization, which afterwards became known as the international labour organization. As I said, in October, 1919, arising out of that provision in the treaty of peace a conference was held at Washington. At that conference it was agreed that a majority of two-thirds of the delegates present should be necessary on the final vote for the adoption of the recommendations of the draft convention. It is evident that the matter was well thought out and discussed at length. The principal of the eight-hour day was adopted at Washington and the convention was referred to the different member countries for ratification. When the ratification of the convention was considered by the Canadian government there arose the question of conflicting federal and provincial jurisdiction. In some quarters it was contended that it was a Dominion matter inasmuch as the treaty had been signed by the Prime Minister of Canada. In other
1716	COMMONS
Treaty of Versailles-Eight Hour Day
quarters it was contended that it was a provincial matter under the British North America Act. So in 1925 the question of jurisdiction was submitted to the Supreme 'Court of Canada, which decided that the regulation of hours of labour came within the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities, but that of course the. Dominion government had sole jurisdiction over its own employees. In 1930 the federal government implemented its part of the convention by legislation as far as it was possible for it to go. On the 27th of March. 1930, there was passed an order in council, which in brief, gives the eight-hour day. to all Dominion employees. There was also passed an act respecting fair wages and the eight-hour day for labour employed on public works of the Dominion. This act was assented to on May 30, 1930. Representations have been made to the various provinces, from many quarters, that they should implement their part of the treaty.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I do not want to
interrupt my hon. friend, but would he state whether the legislation passed last year had the effect of giving the eight hour day to all employees of the Dominion government?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All Dominion government servants now are under the eight hour day legislation?


Peter Heenan: There are certain exceptions.


Mr. GEARY:: There are certain postal
employees who are not under that legislation.


Peter Heenan: I will read the order in
council, if it is desired. The exact terms have gone from my memory.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like that point cleared up. if possible.


Peter Heenan: This is order in council
P.C. 670, approved by the Governor General on March 26, 1930. It reads as follows:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report dated March 19, 1930, from the Minister of Labour, submitting as follows:
1.	That it was recognized in the labour part of the Treaty of Versailles and the corresponding provisions of the other treaties of peace that the well being-physical, moral and intellectual

of the industrial wage-earners is of supreme international importance, and that although differences of climate, habits and customs, economic principles and industrial traditions make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate attainment, there are methods and principles for regulating labour conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply, so far as their special circumstances will permit.
[Mr. Heenan.l
2.	That approval was expressed in the peace treaties of the principle of the eight hour working day.
3.	That a draft convention was adopted at the first session of the conference of the international labour organization (League of ^Nations) in 1919, to limit hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight hours per day.
4.	That the draft convention above mentioned was referred in 1924 to the select standing committee on industrial and international relations of the House of Commons of Canada for examination and report.
5.	That on the recommendation of the committee on industrial and international relations of the House of Commons, approved by the House of Commons, the draft convention of hours of work in industrial undertakings was referred by order in council to the Supreme Court of Canada, with a view to determining the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial authorities respectively, on this subject.
6.	That the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada contained the following declaration: "The subject matter is generally within the competence of the legislatures of the provinces, but the authority vested in these legislatures does not enable them to give the force of law to provisions such as those contained in the draft convention in relation to servants of the Dominion government, or to legislate for those parts of Canada which are not within the boundaries of a province."
That is to say, the legislatures could not legislate for territory under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government, or for Dominion public servants. I continue to read:
7.	That a report from the Civil Service Commission, which was submitted to Your Excellency in Council under date of February 16, 1925, showed that the standard daily hours of work of monthly rate employees in the government departments, are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., with an interval for luncheon, and a half holiday on Saturday, and that the standard hours of prevailing rate employees, numbering 1,576 in Ottawa and 18,2G4 outside Ottawa (of whom 12,247 were postmasters paid on percentage basis) are 44 hours per week, based on an eight hour day for five days and four hours, or a half holiday, on Saturday.
Certain exceptions to these standard hours of work were also noted in the report of the Civil Service Commission.
8.	That request has been made to the government for the granting of the eight hour day to its own employees.
9.	That it is desirable that the principle of the eight hour day should be applied to any branches of the public service of Canada in which it is not now observed.
Then comes the recommendation of the minister:
The minister accordingly recommends that, excepting' in cases where the work of employees is intermittent in character, or the application of this rule is not deemed to be practicable or in the public interest, the hours of work of any employees of the Dominion government who are still required to work more than eight hours daily be reduced to eight hours daily, with a half holiday on Saturday.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation, and submit the same for approval.

Treaty of Versailles-Eight Hour Day
So when that was approved by His Excellency in Council, every employee of the Dominion government was placed on tjhe eight hour day with the exception of those in connection with whom the minister would say it was not deemed to be practical or in the public interest. In other words, the employees of the Dominion government automatically went on the eight hour day the moment that order in council was passed, and it was then up to the different departments to say what was not practical or what was not in the public interest.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: Would the hon. member say when this order in council was passed?


Peter Heenan: March 27, 1930.


James Herbert Stitt: That was during
the hon. member's administration as Minister of Labour?


Peter Heenan: Yes.


James Herbert Stitt: Could the hon. member tell me, then, why the eight hour day was not enforced in the various penitentiaries in Canada with regard to the guards, if that was the policy of the government?


Peter Heenan: I am not trying to lay the blame on this or any other government; I simply want to point out that this order in council was passed in March, 1930, putting every employee of the Dominion government on the eight hour day except where the minister would say it was not in the public interest. I take it for granted that either minister of justice, of that day and of this day, must have said that it was not in the public interest to have penitentiary guards on the eight hour day.


Hugh Guthrie: Was there not an act
passed last session superseding this order in council?


Peter Heenan: No. I think I know what my hon. friend has in mind. The legislation having to do with fair wages and the eight-hour day applied to public works and contracts. The order in council I have just read applied to Dominion government employees, while the act with respect to fair wages and the eight hour day for labour employed on public works of the Dominion of Canada, which is chapter 20-21, George V, assented to on May 30, 1930, provided:
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
1.	This act may be cited as The Fair Wages arid Eight Hour Day Act, 1930.
2.	In this act, the expression "minister" means the Minister of Labour.
3.	(1) Every contract made hereafter with the government of Canada for construction, remodelling, repair or demolition of any work shall be subject to the following conditions respecting wages and hours:-
(a)	all persons in the employ of the contractor, sub-contractor, or of any other person doing or contracting to do the whole or any part of the work contemplated by the contract shall be paid such wages as are generally accepted as current from time to time for competent workmen in the district in which the work is being performed for the character or class of work in which they are respectively engaged; provided that wages shall in all cases be such as are fair and reasonable;
(b)	The working hours of persons while so employed shall not exceed eight hours per day except in such special cases as the Governor in Council may otherwise provide, or except in cases of emergency, as may be approved by the minister.
(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to persons employed in the fabrication or manufacture of materials, supplies or equipment for iise in the work contemplated where such fabrication or manufacture is carried on in any established plant or factory other than a plant or factory established for the purposes of the work contemplated.
4.	The wages and hours of all workmen employed by the government of Canada on such works as are described in section three, and who are excluded from the operation of the Civil Service Act, shall be those set forth in paragraphs fa) and (b) of section three.
5.	(1) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the minister, may make regulations with regard to wages and hours herein provided for and without limiting the generality of the foregoing may provide by regulation for,-
(a)	the method of determining what are current or fair and reasonable wages and the preparation and use of schedules of rates relating thereto;
(b)	rates of wages -for overtime;
(c)	classifications of employment or work;
(d)	the publication and posting of wage schedules;
(e)	payment of wages to employees in case of default by the contractor or .other party charged with such payment and recovery thereof from such contractor or other party;
(f)	the keeping of proper books and records and the examination of the same by government officers;
(g)	persons who may be employed on works referred to in this act;
(hi the subletting of contracts;
(i)	the penalties to be imposed for breaches of the provisions of this act or regulations made hereunder ;
(j)	generally for the due enforcement of the provisions of the act and regulations.
. (2) All regulations made under this act shall fifteen days after the date of the first publication thereof in the Canada Gazette have the same force and effect as if they had been included herein.
It will be seen that the Dominion government has gone about as. far as it is possible to go in a legislative way; the problem is how to get the provinces to carry out their obligations under the treaty. I do not believe
1718	COMMONS
Treaty of Versailles-Eight Hour Day
that Canada because of its peculiar constitution desires to evade its treaty obligations. There is only one province which (has put into effect the eight-hour day-the province of British Columbia, where my good friend (Mr. Mackenzie) comes from. When I was a member of the Ontario legislature in 1924 I moved a resolution and secured its passage, after it had been amended on motion of the premier of the day, to provide for an eight-hour day in all private and public undertakings. The motion passed tfhe legislature but up to the present time has not been implemented in a general way. That is the result in the province of Ontario which is not considered to be at all backward.
This treaty was signed in 1919 and we have now reached 1931 without any action being taken. It is time the Dominion government as a signatory on behalf of the whole of Canada should take the necessary steps to see that our treaty Obligations are carried out. While this resolution which I have the honour to move this evening does not suggest what steps t'he government should take, hon. members will realize that there are many ways by which the desired result can be obtained. One is by the calling of a conference between the Dominion and the provinces and pointing out that inasmuch as Canada has certain treaty obligations they as provinces should implement them so far as their jurisdiction will permit. If by chance any .province or provinces still desire to remain in a backward state and thus take advantage of other provinces which are more progressive, then I think it is the duty of the Dominion government to ask for an amendment to the British North America Act to enable it to carry out its treaty obligations in that regard. I hope that that step will not be necessary, and that the provinces will be unanimous in their desire to carry out these obligations.
Because of the position which he took when leader of the opposition, and again at the last session, perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), by attaching conditions to proposed tariff amendments, will take steps to implement these obligations. My motion leaves the matter wide open. I am not criticizing anyone because it may be felt that the action proposed by this resolution might have been taken long ago; but I do suggest that now is the time for the government to take appropriate steps to see to the fulfilment of our treaty obligations respecting hours of work.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, while I have every sympathy with the hon. member who has

introduced the resolution (Mr. Heenan), I must say that it would have come with better grace had he taken action a year or two ago when he was Minister of Labour in a government which had the power to do the very thing he now proposes. However, it is well that he is at last converted to the necessity of fulfilling our obligations under the treaty. In fact I believe he has been converted to the necessity all along; it was a question of the government of which he was a member accepting his advice in this regard. Now that a new government is in office, I hope they will not dilly-dally until they are again in opposition before seeing the necessity of action.
We meet again with our old friend the British North America Act. I do not intend to traverse the ground covered the other day in the discussion which took place as to the necessity of Canada's having the power to amend her own constitution, but it would seem to me as a layman-I cannot say how it may seem to some of the legal minds in the house-that if Canada had the authority to sign a peace treaty she has a very definite responsibility to see that the terms of that treaty are carried out. We have been very censorious with regard to certain nations who have not fully lived up to their obligations under the peace treaty, but we must remember that the labour clauses of the peace treaty are just as solemn and just as binding as those which relate to boundaries, reparations, disarmament, and so on.
We have our responsibilities, and it was felt when these clauses were inserted, that labour, having suffered a great deal and having waived its claims during the war, had a right to certain consideration after the war was over. Therefore these labour clauses were inserted in the treaty. It must be remembered that unless we on our part live up to our obligations, it is going to be very difficult for other nations who signed the treaty, to live up to theirs. The idea was that we should have certain recognized standards pertaining to labour, and the eight hour day was amongst them. It would seem to me that in our British North America Act there is already ample provision to carry out our obligations under the treaty. There are certain residuary powers left to the Dominion, and I think we have fairly good judicial ground for saying that these residuary powers are sufficient to enable us to carry out our obligations.
The mover of the resolution made this statement:	"There is only one province that
implemented its obligations under the peace

Treaty of Versailles-Eight Hour Day
treaty." To me these words show the utter absurdity of the present position. No one province has obligations under the peace treaty. It was not a province that made the war; it was not a province that signed the treaty. It was the Dominion that went to war; it was the Dominion that signed the treaty that brought the war to an end, and it is the Dominion and not an individual province that is responsible. Therefore we do not get anywhere by assuming that any province has obligations under the treaty. It is we as a Dominion who signed the treaty and it is we as a Dominion who should hold ourselves responsible for implementing the clauses in the treaty. I cannot help thinking after all it is because organized labour in Canada is comparatively weak that we have had such a long delay in carrying out these clauses in the peace treaty.
The fact is that until very recently we have had a considerable number of employees in the public service who have beeen working more than the eight hour day, and I believe there are still some in the public service who are working longer hours. Someone has called my attention to the fact that we have persons in the postal service and so on who are in this position. I cannot very well believe any minister can take the ground that it is in the interest of the people of Canada that men should work longer hours.
Let me call attention also to the seamen, certain grades of whom are working ten and twelve hours a day. They are a class of men who should be considered as coming directly under the Dominion authority; certainly they do not come under any provincial authority, and yet no one so far as I am aware has made any effort to modify our shipping act so that the men who go down to the sea in ships should work only eight hours a day. This is something that comes directly under Dominion jurisdiction.
A year ago attention was called to a large number of people in Canada who were working not only eight and ten hours but even twelve hours a day, and during certain periods, twelve hours a day for seven days a week. Every hon. member who was here a year ago must recall the debates which took place in the house in connection with the steel schedules and the proposal that some of us put forward that increases in the tariff should be made contingent upon the adoption of the eight hour day in the steel works at Sault Ste. Marie and at Sydney. Somebody asks:	Who was the Minister of Labour
then? The Minister of Labour then was the mover of this resolution (Mr. Heenan). I do not want to press that too hard, because
not only did the government of that day refuse to do anything, but I recall that although the opposition gave us some support for a time, when the motion was actually pressed to a division they would not stand behind it. At that time we had a splendid opportunity of insisting that increases in the tariff should be made contingent upon the eight hour day, but it was not taken advantage of. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) promised, however, that unless changes were made within the year, the eight hour day would be enforced in the steel works. I understand some of the men have since been put on the eight hour day and some on a ten hour day, but no legislation has been brought into effect.
It is several years since the premier of one of the provinces wrote a letter urging the Dominion government to call an interprovincial conference at which this matter could be discussed and some uniform action taken. That request was not complied with by the late government. I would urge that the present government should call such a conference at an early date so that an understanding might be arrived at with regard to this matter. For example, as regards the steel workers it would be quite possible to have Ontario and Nova Scotia agree on the eight hour day proposal, and the other provinces would probably fall into line. Indeed it seems to be very late in the day that we in Canada should be discussing the desirability of adopting the eight hour day when economists almost all over the world are urging that it is necessary to have less than an eight hour day, to have a six hour day and possibly a five day week, if we are to overcome the present difficulty arising because of the large number who are unemployed. I recognize that unless concurrent legislation along other lines is passed, the eight hour day might work a hardship in some of the factories in Canada. There are some people engaged on piece work who are driven very hard on a very low wage and it is impossible for them during an eight hour day to make a sufficient wage to bring their standard of living up to anything like decency.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
could be exempted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It has been suggested that they could be exempted. I would say no; rather side by side with the legislation for the eight hour day we ought to have minimum wage legislation which would make it impossible for any employer to hire men at less than a decent living wage. We are coming to that stage when we ought to regard men as at least of as great importance
1720	COMMONS
Treaty of Versailles-Eight Hour Day
as cattle and horses. If owners starve their cattle or horses, we summon them for cruelty; surely we ought to insist that employers, if they are going to hire employees at all, should pay them a decent living wage. If then we are to have an eight hour day in this country, we should have concurrent legislation providing for a minimum wage so that men would receive a total annual wage sufficient to support themselves and their families. As one studies the industrial life across the country, one realizes that we are facing a new situation. Hundreds of thousands of our citizens are unemployed; people are going without work for weeks and months in the year. We ought to distribute work more evenly, and so, if we are producing more, as we seem to be, than the people have the power to purchase, one of the next steps would be to cut down the hours, as has been suggested, to a six hour day and a five day week. The distribution of the work over a larger group, would enable industry to absorb many of the unemployed. Of course there again we would have to have such legislation as would ensure that a lessening of the number of hours per week would not mean a lowered wage. The time has come when we must give very serious consideration to the great industrial problem that is now facing us. We cannot simply drift along allowing some employers to overwork their men for a few months and then turn them adrift, and allowing other employers to put in machines and turn out thousands of employees without giving them any chance of getting a job at all. I thought that we were worse off in the west than they were in the east. Probably we are, but only a few minutes ago I was. talking to some gentlemen from Quebec who were telling me something of the conditions there. The same serious difficulties are beginning to develop in the east, with men drifting about on freight trains from city to city finding it impossible to get any sort of job at all. The resolution I know does not go beyond the implementing of our obligations under the peace treaty, but in view of the serious unemployment situation it seems to me that we ought to give more careful attention than ever before to the idea of a general limitation of hours of labour.
Further may I point out that we are holding back reform legislation in other countries? I can never read the information bulletins as sent out from the labour office at Geneva and observe how far behind the other nations Canada is without a sense of shame coming over me. Instead of being in the van, we are rather a drag on the wheels of progress.


Mr. BROWN:: A good deal of emphasis
has been laid on the fact that Canada is not living up to its obligations assumed under the peace treaty. Would the hon. gentleman give some information on that point? In what respects are we more remiss than other nations? Can the hon. gentleman give us the facts?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sorry I have not the documents of the International Labour Office here with me, but I fancy that a good many hon. members, receive the information published monthly from the labour office at Geneva. There is a table showing the ratifications of the various conventions by the nations that are members of the league. A glance at that table shows that many nations have lived up to their obligations. Canada's space is almost a blank. I recognize that as we are a federal nation it is more difficult for us to carry out some of these obligations than it is for some other nations, but that does not altogether absolve us from responsibility in the matter. Certainly in this matter of ratifications we are far behind a number of the nations of Europe. We try to tell our immigrants how happy they should bo to live in Canada. We believe that Canada is one of the most highly civilized countries, yet a great many of these immigrants who have come to us from the nations of central Europe have been accustomed to the eight hour day and other, conditions which make for a high standard of living. If there were an opportunity later in the debate, I should be very glad to supply my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) with the information that he asked for.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I
hesitated to rise to my feet, Mr. Speaker, first of all because I had no desire to enter into this debate, and secondly because I was waiting in expectation that the established custom would be followed, and that some member representing the government would make a statement of policy on such an important matter. These private resolutions are brought before the house necessarily in a somewhat vague and academic way because we know the rules prohibit their being brought forward in a more positive manner. We had an illustration of that a few minutes ago when, after discussing a resolution that appeared to be perfectly in order, it was ruled out on a technicality. Nevertheless, these resolutions are (brought in because it is the only method the representatives of the people have of informing the government of the temper, feeling and desires of the people they represent

Treaty of Versailles-Eight Hour Day
in these public matters. It is generally supposed-perhaps it is more honoured in the expression than in the actual fact-that some member of the cabinet, more particularly the one whose department is concerned, will at least attend in his place and give some expression of the policy or intentions of the government in the matter. I would not have got to my feet at all if we had heard some expression from the minister who I presume represents in this house the Minister of Labour who is in another chamber.
Something has been Said about the eight-hour day being in force in government departments throughout Canada. I am sorry that the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Plunkett) is not in his seat, because no doubt he would be able to tell me whether the conditions still exist wrhich I heard of a few months ago, of an employee of one of the government offices in Victoria working twelve hours a day and seven days a week and fifty-two weeks in the year. When some protest was made, a subordinate official in that department expressed the opinion that it was quite all right. I think he said that this employee got three weeks' holidays in the year, and that should suffice him. Suffice him, after working twelve hours a day, and seven days a week, fifty-two weeks in the year, except for the three weeks' holiday?
I recall some years ago, when the agitation first became more or less pressing for legislation to provide for old age pensions, the government of the day issued some kind of manifesto in which they admitted that they were pledged to carry out the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles or of- the conventions adopted at Washington, one of which was the one before us. Another related to old age pensions. In that manifesto the government said that they were fully seized of their responsibility in the matter, and they deemed that they had discharged their duty to the fullest extent of their ability and obligation by informing the various provinces that it was up to them. Then they washed their hands of the matter and were quite happy to leave it like that. As the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Woodsworth) said, they appeared to think that Canada had assumed no responsibility as a nation when she signed the treaty. But the pressure of public opinion, particularly labour opinion grew stronger and stronger, and by and by it was discovered that the Dominion did have some power in connection with some of these matters; that while they could not exclusively deal with such things they did have such power as would enable them to help and
assist the provinces in carrying out the obligations which, while technically provincial, were really in the upshot of a federal character. So legislation was brought down giving assistance to the provinces in carrying out at least one of the nation's obligations, and that was with regard to old age pensions. We all recall the objections that were raised by those who were then sitting on this side of the house, and how they pointed out how very unconstitutional it was for the federal government to take that action. It was butting into provincial matters, they said, and nothing but harm could come of it; it would be resented by the provinces and would lead to all kinds of disaster; it was going too far, on the one hand, and was not going to get anywhere, on the other. Since then, possibly in response to the pressure of public opinion, and possibly with some faint regard to the prospect of an election in the immediate future, we find that one of the big parties pledged itself, if not to grant 100 per cent of the old age pension, to grant 99 per cent; thereby admitting that they could from the first have assumed practically the whole obligation. So I hope that we are advancing step by step until finally we shall be able to adjust between the two contracting parties, the provinces and the Dominion, the carrying out of some of these obligations which up to the present, with very few exceptions, we have been decidedly ignoring.
As a nation we are ignoring our obligations. We boast of our nationality and we signed the treaty of Versailles as a nation, but we are not living up to the obligations we then assumed. The suggestion has been made, and very aptly I think, by both hon. members who preceded me, that there should be a conference called. In the absence of any light or leading on the part of the government I would again urge that the; conference be held. A meeting between the provinces and the Dominion is very urgently required to solve several matters, such as that of affording relief during the coming winter. Every day the authorities in the towns and cities in the province of British Columbia are passing resolutions demanding this conference and saying that it must be held to take care not only of the certainty of need of relief for the next winter but also of the relief actually needed at the present time. People do not realize that although we are in the middle of the so called busy season every city has a substantial problem of relief assistance on its hands. If such a conference as I suggested a few days ago was held, it would be an appropriate time for the Dominion government to lay before the provinces this aspect
1722	COMMONS
Treaty of Versailles-Eight Hour Day
of the case. Federal authorities might say at such a time that they were prepared to give with a liberal hand and might ask the provinces not to forget their obligation. They might say to the provinces "If we help you on the one hand, what will you do to carry out your obligations in connection with matters with which you are as deeply concerned as we?" Such a conference would afford an appropriate opportunity to make some reasonable negotiations with the different provinces who are not in a position to flout this government or to say that they will pay no attention to its recommendations.
Mention has been made of men working less than eight hours a day. There are now a large number of men working less than eight hours, many of them because of hard times and other through a sense of loyalty to their fellow workmen. They are willing to work shorter hours so that the work may be spread around. Some employers are taking advantage of the labour situation, requiring their men to work short hours and in return giving equally short wages. On the other hand there are many firms which have realized the gravity of the situation and in order to spread the work around have put the men not only on eight hour shifts but on six hour shifts, and in most cases the men cheerfully agreed in the attempt to help their fellow men in distress.
The last speaker (Mr. Woodsworth) mentioned the conditions in the steel works of the eastern provinces. Taken by and large the average employer, like the average worker, is a pretty decent man; he will not abuse his employees or take advantage of an unfortunate situation. I am speaking about the bulk of them. Of course there are some who are consciousless and disregard their obligations. There are some who would take advantage of their fellow beings for the sake of making a little money-at least they think they make a little more money, but perhaps they do not. Those men, however, for the sake of some slight pecuniary reward will, as it is stated in scripture, "grind the faces of the poor." Those numbers are comparatively small. It would seem wise for us by legislation to lend our weight to assist those men who are willing to do the right thing rather than handicap them by having to compete with men who are false to their God, their neighbour and themselves.
It has been alleged, and truly I believe, that our lack of action has given an excuse for similar lack of action in other countries.
I think one hon. member asked to what extent Canada had fallen short of the standards 
of other countries. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre answered in a general way, not having his data before him. I am in a similar position, in this connection I shall refer to the records of the labour conventions passed at the meetings of the League of Nations at Geneva. In passing I would remark I think it was a mistake that those resolutions were called "conventions." If they had been called "resolutions" the people would have understood that they were binding thmesleves to something. People have a vague idea of the meaning of the word "conventions", and they do not understand they are binding themselves to a solemn obligation and agreeing to do such and such a thing. If the word "treaty" had been used I think the position would hve been clearer and the actual contractional obligations would have been understood. I am speaking from memory and am subject to correction, but I think that the conventions dealing with labour situations throughout the world issued by the League of Nations at Geneva numbered about four hundred. I believe the exact figure was in the neighborhood of four hundred and thirty. The number to which Canada agreed was, I am sorry to say woefully few. I should not like to go on record as to how few, but I think the exact number was in the neighbourhood of thirty-five. So that no matter what other nations have done we have a long way to go before we overtake some of those nations which, as the hon. member for 'Winnipeg North Centre has said, have obligated themselves to carry out a large number of the conventions, and have done so. The debate is not closed, and in fairness, and with no intention to criticize the government, I would suggest that the minister give us a lead in the matter by outlining the intentions of the government, if any. We should know whether the government purposes to do anything or to disregard the matter. I think that hon. members should be taken into the confidence of the government. Many times during this session when questions have been asked on the orders of the day we have been told that here and now is not the moment to discuss such and such a matter. We have been given assurances, we have been promised that at some distant and unmentioned date declarations of policies would be made. I suggest that now one of those auspicious moments has arrived; the time seems to be ripe for the government to declare its policy on the subject which has been brought up for discussion. The resolution has not been proposed for the sake of hearing ourselves talk or for the sake of taking up the time of hon. members-we would rather be at home. I

Treaty oj Versailles-Eight Hour Day
think this matter is one of sufficient importance to merit an expression of policy or opinion on the part of the government of the day.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I express the view of every hon. member in the house when I say that none of us, if given the opportunity, would be slow to take any steps which would assist the workingmen or those who for the time being may not be getting just as much of this world's goods as some others. I am not in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodswortfh) when he brings Canada to task for 'being behind the other nations of the world in connection with social legislation. It is true that during the short time I have been connected with the Department of Labour I have not had occasion to inquire into conditions in all the provinces. But I do know that in Ontario, with whose laws I am probably more familiar than with those of any other province, many measures have been enacted seeking to alleviate-yes, I will say it-the unfair position in which workers have been placed. The Workman's Compensation Act passed by the legislature in the days of the late Sir James Whitney was, I think we will all agree, one of the best pieces of social legislation that was ever enacted on this North American continent or in any other part of the world. That legislation was not thrown together indifferently and passed hurriedly; it was the result of years of careful study and investigation. It is based on a firm foundation, and provides for a fund to which industry contributes in sufficient measure to ensure the success of the legislation. I believe that all the other provinces have enacted similar legislation, and to-day we no longer see our workmen obliged to seek redress in the courts for damages arising out of accidents.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the hon
minister recognizes that applies to industry only, not to agriculture. In a number of countries of Europe workmen's compensation applies also to agricultural workers.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am not acquainted with the countries where workmen's compensation applies to agriculture, but I hazard the opinion-[DOT]


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have a table before me giving the countries.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not know of any
studied attempt in this country to have agriculture brought under the terms of the Workman's Compensation Act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is where we happen to be behind other countries.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I very much doubt if agriculture would be content to share the same burden as is assumed by industry to contribute to the fund necessary to render effective the legislation in this province. Then we have statutes in Ontario and in the other provinces to provide assistance for those engaged in industry.
Now, the pact to which reference has been made does not, I think, cast upon any of the signatory powers the obligation to invoke its very terms. The treaty with respect to labour conditions is more in the nature of a guide for those who signed it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A chart.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: A chart if you like, although perhaps I will not use the word because it has not yet been adopted by this side of the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You need one badly.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is more in the nature of a guide towards bringing into effect the suggestions contained in the treaty. The treaty begins:
The high contracting parties in order to promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war. by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the understandings of international lavas the actual rule of conduct among governments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another, agree to this covenant of the League of Nations.
Reference has been made to part XIII of the treaty. It is as follows:
Whereas the League of Nations has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such a peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice;
And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required: as, for example, by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a man-mum working day and week, the regulation of the labour supply, the prevention of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment, the protection of children, young persons and women, provision for old age anl injury protection of the interests of workers wher employed in countries other than their own
1724	COMMONS
Treaty of Versailles-Eight Hour Day
recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organization of vocational and technical education and other measures:
Now, I hazard the opinion that not a nation in the world, let alone those that have signed this treaty, has been able to accomplish anything like that. The treaty never contemplated that its signatories would go back to their respective countries and pass laws to bring these things about. Following that preamble the treaty set up the machinery whereby all these subjects could be brought before the accredited representatives of the countries concerned for discussion and investigation, in the hope that the suggestions therein contained might be realized.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But a large number of the signatory countries have actually passed such legislation.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They may have passed
such legislation, but I doubt if it has accomplished what this preamble seeks to accomplish. For instance, I should like to know what nation in the world to-day is not troubled with unemployment. Those countries may have solemnly passed such legislation, but probably it is just as effective as some of the resolutions which we pass concerning the abolition of war and establishing the world on a permanent peace basis. In section 2 of part XIII I find the following:
The high contracting parties recognize that differences of climate, habits and customs, of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate attainment. But, holding as they do, that labour should not be regarded merely as an article of commerce, they think that there are methods and principles for regulating labour conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply, so far as their special circumstances will permit.
Now undoubtedly that and other sections of the treaty were designed to take care of just such a situation as we have. Remember, I am not quarrelling with the spirit of the resolution at all, because if by conference or by arrangement with the provinces and with industry, yes, with agriculture, we can bring about a state of affairs that will enable us to lend assistance to any class of people in this country, then I am sure the government would work'towards that end, and I believe it would receive the support of every hon. member. Some effort has been made in this direction. True, ten or twelve years have passed since this treaty was signed, and I do not know whether any conferences were called in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1924. But at any rate, whether we like it or not, our constitution divides certain powers between the Dominion and the (Mr. Gordon.]
provinces, and how we can get away from that division and still preserve the rights of the provinces I have not yet heard anyone suggest.


Alan Webster Neill: What was the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1924?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The substance of their
judgment in 1924-


Hugh Guthrie: 1925.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: My colleague says the decision was given in 1925. Its substance was that under the British North America Act the Dominion government did not have complete power to bring into being or establish the principles contained in the treaty and render them binding upon the provinces, as no doubt my friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) knows, on account of the division of authority between the Dominion and the provinces under certain sections of the British North America Act. At any rate, at least it is hopeful to see that the federal government has passed legislation going as far as the government of the day felt they could go towards making the law applicable to work undertaken by the Dominion and to employees of the Dominion government. Probably it is to be regretted that steps were not taken to confer with the provinces sooner with a view to investigating the situation within the various provinces in the hope that common ground could be found where joint action, if necessary, could be taken by the federal and provincial authorities in order to satisfy, in so far as it can be satisfied, the principle laid down in the treaty.
So far as this government is concerned, certainly we will not be unmindful of the rights, of those who would be concerned with the acceptance of the spirit of this resolution. There are some matters in connection with it which undoubtedly would give trouble, other than the division of legislative authority. Personally I know that in a number of industries a very considerable number of workers would not be satisfied with the eight hour day. The workers to whom I have particular reference are those working on community contracts. They would prefer to work longer hours in order to get the additional remuneration which would result from those longer hours of labour.


Alan Webster Neill: What kind of work are they engaged in?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have particular reference to those engaged in contract mining.


Alan Webster Neill: In metalliferous mines?

Treaty of Versailles-Eight Hour Day


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes. They do not constitute any large class, but there are other classes of labour who carry on in the same way and by whom complaints undoubtedly would be voiced.
I am not here for the purpose of criticizing any government of the past for not having gone further than they did go; I think criticism of that character would serve no useful purpose. There may have been good and sufficient reasons why the matters were not investigated further in the past. On behalf of this government I can only say that this whole situation will be given consideration and study in the hope that something may be evolved which will be at least a partial solution of the subject matter of this resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure the
country will appreciate the promise made by the minister that at least consideration will be given this important matter by the government, but if consideration is along the lines of the early part of my hon. friend's speech, I am afraid the result will not amount to very much. It did seem to me, in listening to my hon. friend, that, in so far as it might place obligations upon the provinces, he was seeking to relieve the government of all responsibility whatever with respect to the treaty, at least I took that to be the significance of his remarks.
I do not agree with the minister in that, though I agree with him entirely when he says the provinces and the Dominion each have different obligations in the matter of legislation. However, if there is a treaty which imposes upon the country as a whole an obligation with respect to such a great question as the eight-hour day, it does seem to me the Dominion is thereby brought into a very special relationship with the provinces, to see that in some way, if at all possible, the provisions of the treaty in that particular are made applicable in the provinces as well as in the Dominion.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Would the right hon.
gentleman be satisfied if this government equated in time and effort the work of the late government in bringing about anything of this character?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I only hope
this government will begin to approach what was done by the late government. I can hardly think they will do so, but I hope very much they will. Matters of this kind must necessarily be proceeded with by stages. Undoubtedly where an obligation is placed upon both the Dominion and the provinces, the 22110-110
provinces would expect the Dominion in the first instance to fulfil in letter and spirit alike the obligation as it bears upon the Dominion. The ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) has given to the house this evening a resume of the legislation enacted by the late administration when it was in office. He made it clear, and I think it is apparent to all, that while the late administration was in office it did place upon the statutes legislation with respect to the eight-hour day. which went just as far as it was possible for this parliament to enact legislation of the kind. We made a provision with respect to all public work-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: What year was that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was in 1930, during the last session of the last parliament.
Mr. MANIO'N:	Just before the election.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was the last session of the last parliament. Prior to that, we had been working up to the point, bit by bit, where an all embracing enactment would be assured of more or less general support in the house; we had applied the eight hour day to the employees first of one department and then of another, or to one class, then to another, gradually extending its application to all. At the time the general act was introduced there were a few remaining odds and ends, and the general act made applicable to all fields and virtually to all employees what had been the policy of the government with respect to the application of the principle of the eight hour day. As I was saying when interrupted, with respect to public works, the provision of the eight hour day was made generally applicable to all employees engaged upon Dominion work. With respect to employees of departments other than those working upon contracts of the Department of Public Works the eight hour day was made applicable by order in council, in so far as it was believed to be in the public interest to regulate the hours of employees of all departments in that way.
That was the first necessary step towards a general application of the eight hour day throughout Canada. The next step it would offer would be for the Dominion government to call the provinces into conference and point out to them their obligation under the treaty with respect to the application of the eight hour day. Once the Dominion has made its own position clear and unassailable it is then in a position to speak with some force and effect to the different provinces. I believe an evening or two ago, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) suggested with res-

1726	COMMONS
Treaty of Versailles-Eight Hour Day
pect to amendments to the British North America Act, that it was desirable that we of this house should have a conference to decide in the first instance upon what amendments we coadd all agree. That was to be followed by a conference with the provinces, to see if they could not be brought into line with respect to the proposed necessary amendments.
I had rather hoped that the minister who is representing the Minister of Labour in this house, in speaking this evening, would on behalf on the government have taken advantage of the proposed conference referred to by the Minister of Justice the other night and said that the government, at the time of the coming conference with respect to amendments to the British North America Act, would consider with the provinces this question of the eight hour day. Perhaps the Minister of Justice will speak later in the debate and give the house and the country this assurance. If he would go that far I think we would be moving one step further in the right direction, and it seems to me this is a step that should be taken. If, as was intimated earlier in the debate, only one province is at present complying with the provisions of the treaty having to do with the eight hour day, clearly that province to some extent is being handicapped in its competition with others by virtue of its own legislation, which is along right and proper lines. In other words, because its standard is high it is being defeated in its very aims to improve conditions, by the fact that its standard is being undermined through other provinces not falling into line. A Dominion cenference which would show the necessity of a uniform standard with respect to hours being made to prevail in all the provinces would be assisting those provinces which to-day are maintaining a high standard or which in the near future are likely to maintain it. That is a step which I think might be taken with respect to the situation as it is at the moment with all due regard to what has been done in the past or to what has been left undone. Having made our own position impregnable so far as our obligations under the provisions of the Versailles treaty with respect to the eight hour day are concerned, we are now in a position to use our best efforts through conferences and the like with the provinces to have them adopt a similar course. If as a result of a conference, it becomes obvious that the necessary enactments cannot be obtained in that way, then it would seem to me to be in the interests of all concerned that careful consideration should be given to a

possible amending of the British North America Act so as to make possible uniformity of legislation throughout the Dominion on such all important matters as this.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the concluding words which have just fallen from the lips of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). He has summed up in a sentence the whole matter, namely, that something will have to be done in regard to the British North America Act before any further practical steps can be taken in the direction suggested by the motion moved by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Last Monday night we discussed in this house the question of amendments to the British North America Act with a view to granting to the parliament of Canada the right to amend Canda's constitution, a right which is enjoyed by all the provinces in respect to their own constitutions, but is not enjoyed by the federal parliament. No advance can be made in regard to the proposal embraced in this motion until an amendment to the British North America Act has been passed.
My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition said that it is the duty of this government to take such a position in regard to this matter that it can speak to the provinces with force and effect. My view is that the provinces value their rights and their privileges under our constitutional charter just as highly as we in this parliament value ours, and the moment this parliament seeks to speak to the provincial authorities with force and effect, trouble is bound to ensue. We sometimes forget that our constitutional charter is just as much the constitutional charter of the provinces as it is of the Dominion, and they value it just as highly. The question involved in this motion is one as between employer and employee. It is a question of hours of labour, purely and simply, a question of civil rights, and questions of civil rights are expressly stated in the British North America Act to be within the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces. I assume that no one knows better than the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition that this matter has been determined by the highest tribunal in the land. From the year 1921, when the government of my right hon. friend took power, down to 1924, neither he nor his government nor his then Minister of Labour made a move or took a step in regard to the implementing of any obligations in respect

Treaty oj Versailles-Eight Hour Day
to the eight hour day which were cast upon Canada by the covenant of the League of Nations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not
correct.


Hugh Guthrie: The matter was brought to the attention of this house by hon. members representing labour; upon their motion a discussion took place and the question was referred to a committee of the house, the committee on international and industrial relations. That motion was moved in 1924. It received the support of the whole house, and the question was referred to that committee and occupied their attention for some time. They examined witnesses, they considered our constitutional charter, they called before them the Deputy Minister of Justice; they covered the case very fully and made a report to the house to the effect that the matter should be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion. It was not the government which initiated these proceedings, it was the Labour party in this house supported by a majority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The majority was a government majority.


Hugh Guthrie: The majority was the
unanimous vote of this house and not a government majority. Had the government had its way probably the matter would never have been brought before the house. The question was put up squarely to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1925. I have not the report of the case before me, but I quote from the order in council referred to by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, as follows: __ That the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada contained the following declaration: "The subject matter is generally within the competence of the legislatures of the provinces but the authority vested in these legislatures does not enable them to give the force of law to provisions such as those contained in the draft convention in relation to servants of the Dominion government, or to legislate for those parts of Canada which are not within the boundaries of a province."
That was the answer of the supreme court, and that answer portrays a real difficulty. This parliament is powerless to carry out a convention applicable to the Dominion of Canada save only in respect of our own employees. While the provinces agreed to adopt any obligations which were cast upon Canada by that treaty, the country and the house are aware that there is a clause in the British North America Act, clause 132, which is applicable to international treaties. That clause reads as follows:
The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof, as part of the British Empire, towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
That clause enables this parliament only to deal with foreign treaties so far as national rights and interests are concerned, and does not give us the power in any way to dispose of, to impose upon or to limit the rights, duties or privileges of any of the provinces.
As I view this motion in the form in which it is moved I can see no objection whatever to its adoption at the present time by parliament. Speaking on another motion a week ago I stated that it was the intention of the government at some time in the not too distant future to summon a provincial conference for the express purpose of considering questions relating to the amending of the British North America Act. I realize and we all know that there is throughout the provinces of Canada a very strong desire that certain amendments should be made to our constitutional act; in fact requests in this regard do come from time to time, both from the east and from the west, particularly in regard to matters of taxation.
There is another question which will occasion a distinct cleavage between provincial and Dominion authority. I do not know that there is any right more sacredly held in the provinces of Canada than their right to legislate on all matters pertaining to property and civil rights. I would not be one who would dictate or seek to dictate to any province as to what line of action it should take in regard to matters distinctly under provincial control. I would not be one who would seek to speak with that force and effect which my right hon. friend mentioned we would have if we took a lead in regard to this matter. I realize that this question is one which the provinces themselves will have to decide, and if they are willing that in regard to this matter of civil rights, hours of labour and employment in the provinces, the federal government shall represent them in carrying out this convention, all well and good. On behalf of the government I say that we agree, but I shall be no party to dictating to or coercing the provinces in this or any other respect upon a matter which lies purely within provincial jurisdiction.


Alan Webster Neill: The language which I used
was "give a lead." I did not suggest coercion.


Hugh Guthrie: I was not referring to
my hon. friend. I was referring to the language of the leader of the opposition.
1728	COMMONS
Treaty oj Versailles-Eight Hour Day


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my hon. friend for a moment? I think he is placing upon my words a construction that they were certainly not intended to have. If by "force and effect," he means compulsion, I quite agree with him that the Dominion has no right in any way to attempt to compel the provinces to do anything. But if by " force and effect" is meant what I meant, "speaking with some degree of authority," or if we put it the other way, "not without some force or without effect," as would be the case if our own skirts were clean, then that would be the interpretation.


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot agree that we
could speak with authority in this matter because the authority is not in the hands of this parliament. The authority to legislate in this matter is in the hands of the provinces. I repeat: If the provinces will agree, the way is made plain for us in this parliament; but if the provinces fail of agreement, there is no way of coercing them and you cannot get an amendment to the British North America Act to give you authority to coerce them unless the provinces agree that such an amendment be made. That is the practical, the whole difficulty. There is no use in beating about the bush. No one knows the difficulty better than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He is a student of these matters; he has a very wide knowledge of them; he speaks with great authority upon this question, but he realizes just as fully as I do or as any other hon. member does that there is this real practical difficulty ahead of us. But I am willing to say that when the conference is called this is one of the matters which may fairly be submitted to it. For my part I would much rather that the provinces themselves introduced such a question. I know they will introduce at such a conference many other questions which affect their rights and some which involve ours; but I believe the best way to reach a conclusion, and a satisfactory one, upon this and many other questions, is to have that conference and to have it just as soon as it can conveniently be held.
The motion is a pious aspiration in the right direction and I think the house may well agree that it should carry in its present form.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: I
am glad to hear the statement just made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). At the present time there is no question of greater importance than that of the hours of labour worked in industry. Under the circumstances it is far better that the federal authorities take

the lead in this matter than that we wait until the nine different provinces do so. It is much easier for the central authority to assume the lead than to wait until the nine provinces can come together on common ground.
The question of hours of labour has ramifications outside the provincial aspect. The hours of labour in one country naturally affect the hours of labour in another, and the hours of labour worked in one province affect the hours of labour worked in another. In exactly the same way, as the acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) pointed out, when Ontario introduced the Workmen's Compensation Act in that province, other provinces in the Dominion followed suit. So it is with the hours of labour. I am satisfied that ultimately the hours of labour will have to be regulated, not merely provineially or federally, but internationally. For one country to be on an eight hour day schedule and another to be on a twelve hour day schedule is unfair, because it is obvious that a country where long hours are worked and the wages are low will find it much easier to compete with a country where there is a high standard of living. That is one of the reasons given why some countries cannot reduce the hours of labour or give increased remuneration to the workers engaged in industry.
I contend, therefore, that the federal government ought to make every possible effort to strengthen the League of Nations in its attempt to bring about international legislation along the lines indicated here this evening. Already several nations have carried out the recommendations of the League of Nations, not merely by adopting resolutions but actually by passing legislation. Amongst the countries which have adopted the eight hour day are Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal, Rou-mania, Czechoslovakia and several others. In addition there are several countries which as yet have not put through such legislation, but the eight hour day is more or less effective as it is throughout the whole of the British isles.
The question of the eight hour day is not a new one. It has been before the peoples of different parts of the world for many a long year. In fact, when members of the present government chided the opposition for being so slow in their activities, I want to point out that away back in 1919 a commission known as the Mathers commission was appointed by the then government. It toured the country and brought in a rather comprehensive report in regard to labour conditions and legislation.

Treaty of Versailles-Eight Hour Day
I should like to quote just one recommendation of that commission. Recommendation No. 52 reads:
In many industries in Canada the eight hour day has already been adopted, and it has been recognized by the Peace treaty. We recommend that it be established by law throughout Canada, with due regard for the above consideration. Such legislation should provide for a weekly rest of at least twenty-four hours which should include Sunday whenever practicable.
So that away back in the summer of 1919 we had a commission which, after it had toured the country, brought in a recommendation in favour of an eight hour day. From 1919 until the present time very little progress has been made in Canada with regard to implementing the recommendations of either the peace treaty or the Mathers commission of 1919.
I said a moment ago that the hours of labour would be far more effectively regulated by international convention than by national legislation. Therefore I believe that anything we can do in this house to strengthen the only body in existence at the present time that is dealing with this question, should have the sympathy of all concerned. The only body of an international character dealing with these matters is the League of Nations. I believe it should be our duty to strengthen the League of Nations, and the only way in which we can strengthen it is by this house bringing in legislation implementing the peace treaty of Versailles. I was very glad indeed, therefore, to hear the pronouncement this evening of the Minister of Justice, that a conference with the provincial governments will be called at an early day. I hope that when that conference meets the Dominion government will themselves take a firm stand and go on record as being in favour of the eight hour day, and when it has been approved by the provinces, I hope we shall then be in a position to carry out the recommendations of the peace treaty.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: 
James Herbert Stitt: I hesitate at this late hour to rise and address the house but
the question of the eight-hour day was a very live issue in the constituency of Selkirk, which I have the honour to represent, and which is populated by so many working people. When I first saw this motion on the order paper I Thought it was remarkable that it should be proposed by the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr Heenan) in view of the conditions prevailing in my constituency in relation to a matter under the supervision of the late government. I refer to the fact that in the constituency of Selkirk there is a federal penitentiary at Stony. Mountain. I have not been able to understand just how it was, if the late administration was in favour of the eight-hour day, that they allowed the guards at that penitentiary to work in shifts of eleven and thirteen hours-and I may add that at the present time they are still working long hours. Many of them are returned soldiers drawing a pension for disability incurred on active service, and they are called upon to perform the task of keeping guard for eleven and sometimes thirteen hours a day. One who has had military service knows that a man who has been on guard for a period of four hours, and often less, is very much inclined to go to sleep and is not able to perform his duty adequately.
I was interested in the remark of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the effect that the provinces expected the Dominion to fulfil to the letter the wording of this resolution. If he realizes that the provinces expected the federal government to live up to the letter Of this resolution, how was it that in all the penal institutions of this country the late administration allowed the guards to work for periods of eleven and thirteen hours a day? That is one thing that I have never been able to understand.
In the province of Manitoba there is also a provincial penal institution at Headingly, a very large institution housing more inmates than the federal penitentiary. In this provincial institution they have been able to establish an eight-hour day for the guards, and I see no reason why the eight-hour day could not be established in our federal penal institution as well.
(Mr. Pouliot.]
This question of hours of labour is one which is agitating the mind of every thinking man in Canada at the present time. We all know that by specialization of functions men are able to accomplish more in a lesser period of time than they were heretofore. The great problem we are facing to-day is not that of efficiency of labour, is not that of the production of the largest quantity of goods in the shortest period of time at a minimum cost. It is the problem faced at the present time by every nation in the civilized world, that of the distribution of work. As indicated the other day by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) we have to a great extent solved the problem of production, but we have not solved the problem of distribution. If the late government was really in earnest in the matter of carrying out the terms of the peace treaty, it is remarkable that this conference was not called long ago. If the late government was really honestly endeavouring to -carry out the obligation of Canada to the other nations of the world, such a conference should have been held. I realize that if the resolution were adopted and the law of the land became such that in Canada the eight-hour day should be compulsory, a great hardship might be inflicted on many of our workers. When I make that statement I am thinking of the iron and steel industry in the town of Selkirk in my constituency. In that constituency there are many men who are working-


Peter Heenan: I was wondering if the hon. member heard the acting leader of the government say that he was willing the motion should carry. I *would remind the hon. member that it is now just one minute to eleven o'clock.


James Herbert Stitt: I am quite satisfied that the motion should carry if the hon Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) expressed his willingness. If the motion is carried all will be accomplished which reasonably could be expected at the present time. I have sat in my seat and listened to member after member speak on this matter. I represent a great number of workingmen in the constituency of Selkirk and no member representing my constituency could sit in this house and continue to represent those workingmen unless he raised his voice in support of this motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It being eleven o'clock the house will stand adjourned until to-morrow at three o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Beauharnois Power Corporation
Tuesday, May 19, 1931.