1931-04-27

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

Mr. REID:: 1.	Have any eggs from Australia come into Canada during the past five months?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	Has any butter from Australia come into Canada at any time during the past five months ?
4.	If so, how much?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1 and 2. There were no eggs imported into Canada from Australia during the past five months.
3	and 4. Canada's imports of butter from Australia during the past five months were:
Butter	Lb.	$November, 1930.. ..	.. 117,600	39,676December, 1930.. ..	.. 308,000	98,478January, 1931.. ..	.. 432,768	129,940February, 1931.. ..	.. 330,598	98,080March, 1931	.. 862,904	252,877



SONIER-TRACADIE MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	When did the contract for carrying the mail between Sonier office and the Tracadie office terminate?
2.	Was this contract terminated before the date of termination named in the contract?
3.	When was the contract held by Frederick Basque terminated, and on whose recommendation was this contract terminated?
4.	Were tenders asked for the new contract? If not, on whose recommendation was the new contract awarded to Gregoire Sonier?
5.	If contract was terminated before date fixed in contract, what was the reason for such termination?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	December 31, 1930.
2.	No.
3.	Contract expired December 31, 1930.
4.	No. A. M. Robichaud.
5.	Answered by No. 2.



BUTTER IMPORTS, 1930-1931

Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	What quantity of butter was imported to Canada from August 1, 1930, to March 1, 1931?
2.	What countries have exported butter to Canada during the same period?
3.	What quantity from each country?
4.	What duty was levied on each country per pound of butter?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	The quantity of butter imported into Canada from August 1, 1930, to March 1, 1931,

Questions
9S5
was 6,375,109 pounds. From August 1, 1929, to March 1, 1930, the imports of butter amounted to 28,176,634 pounds.
2 and 3. Canada's imports of butter in pounds, by countries, were as follows:
August 1, 1930, to March 1, 1931
Countries	Pounds
United Kingdom..	.. .. 47,600
United States.. ..	.. .. 47,849
Australia		.. .. 1,244,936
Bermuda		.... 45
New Zealand.. ..	.. .. 5,067,679
Total		.. .. 6,375,109
August 1, 1929, to	March 1, 1930
Countries	Pounds
United Kingdom.. .,		 5,600
United States.. ..	.. .. 55,596
Australia		.. .. 408,912'
New Zealand.. ..	.. .. 27,704,664
Alaska		.... 205
Newfoundland.. ..	.... 828
Syria		.. .. 829
Total		.. .. 28,176,634
4. The average duty levied on each country per pound of butter from August 1, 1930, to March 1, 1931, and from August 1, 1929, to March 1, 1930, was:
August 1, 1930, to March 1, 1931
Cents
Countries	Per Pound
United Kingdom	7.77
United States	14.00
Australia	  1.00
Bermuda	 4.00
New Zealand	 1.36
August 1, 1929, to March 1, 1930
Cents
Countries	Per Pound
United Kingdom	 3.00
United States	 4.00
Australia	 1.70
New Zealand	 1.03
Alaska	4.00
Newfoundland	3.00
Syria	 4.00



WELLAND SHIP CANAL-SALARY REDUCTIONS

Mr. BOULANGER:: Have the salaries of any class of employees of the Welland ship canal been reduced since October, 1930?


Mr. MANION:: No.



CHARLEVOIX-SAGUENAY-POST OFFICE DISMISSALS

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed from their duties in the counties of Charlevoix and Saguenay since July 28, 1930?
2.	What are their names and where were they located?
3.	What are the names and addresses of persons who made complaints against the said postmasters?
4.	Were inquiries held before the dismissal of the said postmasters?
5.	If so, by whom were the inquiries held?
6.	What salaries or fees were paid to the inquiry commissioners in each case?
7.	Why were these postmasters dismissed?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1. 6.
2.	3, 4, 5, 6 and 7-See attached list.

LIST OF POSTMASTERS IN OHARLEVOIX-SAGUENAY DISMISSED FROM OFFICE FROM JULY 28th, 1930 TO APRIL 20th, 1931
3 U1 P>
C 2, Post Office	Postmaster	Complaint made by	Investigation or not. By whom	Commissioner's Fees and Expenses	Reason for DismissalCap 5, la Branche	Pierre Lapointe	Action taken on District Superintendent's report.	Investigated by District Superintendent, Quebec.	Shortage and other financial irregularities.Les Eboulements	J. H. Tremblay	Thos. Maher, Quebec...	Enquiry held by H. Fanning Gosselin, K.C., Quebec.	$98 86	Active political partisanship.Mille Vaches	E. Boulianne	Thos. Maher, Quebec...	Investigated by District Superintendent, Quebec.	Unsatisfactory service.Ste. Anne de Beaupre	Raoul Fortier	Thos. Maher, Quebec...	No investigation. Postmaster refused to sign declaration denying active part in politics.	Active political partisanship.Thos. Maher, Quebec... Thos. Maher, Quebec...	St. Ir6n6e les Bains	Jos. Girard	Enquiry held by H. Fanning Gosselift, K.C., Quebec.	$99 80	Active political partisanship.
s
o
CXl Co *S'.
s
Co


Questions



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What are the names of the various municipalities in the joint counties of Charlevoix-Saguenay which applied for grants under the Unemployment Relief Act?
2.	What grant was received by each municipality?
3.	What was the federal contribution in each case?
4.	What was the provincial contribution in
each case?	*
5.	'What was the municipal contribution in each case?
6.	What amounts have been expended and paid by the federal governments to each municipality in each case?
7.	Were any amounts granted to these various municipalities out of the special fund and for charitable purposes by virtue of the Unemployment Relief Act?


Mr. GORDON:: Municipality	Amount	Dom. Contri- button	Prov. Contri- bution	Mun. Contri- bution	Amount paid by Dominion	Direct Relief paid by DominionSaguenay County	$	s	$	$	s	$Aguanish (Unorg.)	800	320	480	Bonne Esperance (Unorg.)	900	360	540	Bergeronne Township	3,500	1,225	1,225	1,050	Bergeronne Village	4,000	1,600	1,600	8CC	Godbout (Unorg.)	1,000	400	6(0	Ha Ha Bav (Unorg.)	1,000	400	600	Harrington (Unorg.) 	1,400	560	840	Havre St. Pierre Village	5,000	2,000	2,000	1,000	lie de Mai and Shelter Bay	5 000	2,000	3 000	246 96	1 000	400	600	400 0G	Kegaska (Unorg.)	40C	160	240	La Tabatiere	1,000	400	600	Les Escoumains	8,000	2,400	2,400	3,200	Longue Pointe de Mingan	2,500	1,000	1,500	746 40	Longue Pointe de Blanc Sablon	et Lourdes de Blanc Sablon	(Unorg.)	1,100	440	660	2,000	800	1 200	375 36	Mingan (Unorg.)	400	. 160	240	Mutton Bay (Unorg.)	1,100	540	560	Natashquam (Unorg.)	2,000	SCO	1,200	Old Fort (Unorg.)	70C	280	420	Piastre Bay (Unorg.)	1,200	480	720	Pointe des Monts (Unorg.)	300	120	180	Pointe aux Anglais (Unorg.)...	1,500	600	900	205 04	Riviere au Tonnerre	5,000	2,000	2,000	1,000	220 20	500 00Riviere Pentecote (Unorg.)	3,000	1,200	1,800	2,000	800	1,200	462 00	Romaine (Unorg.)	300	120	180	Sacr6 Cceur de J6sus Parish...	8,000	2,800	2,800	2,400	Salomon Bay (Unorg.)	1,000	400	COO	Sept lies-Letellier Township.	6,000	2,100	2,100	1,800	873 76	124 22Sept Cantons Unis du Saguenay	12,000	4,S00	4,800	2,400	2,068 30	Ste. Anne de Portneuf Canton..	3,500	1,400	1,400	700	358 76	St. Augustine (Unorg.)	300	120	180	St. Firmin	2,000	700	700	600	383 88	Ste. Marguerite et Clark City	(Unorg.)	3,500	1,400	2,100	St. Paul de Mille Vaches	5,000	1,750	1,750	1,500	529 92	St. Paul de Mille Vaches Can-	ton	1,000	350	350	300	St. Paul River (Unorg.)	1,000	400	600	Tadoussac Village	2,500	625	625	1,250	85 72	Whale Head (Unorg.)	LOCO	400	600	Charlevoix County	Cap & l'Aigle	2,000	500	500	1,000	Paroisse de St. Pierre et St.	Paul de la Baie-^-St. Paul-	8,000	2,000	2,000	4,000	Baic St. Paul	8,000	2,000	2,000	4,000	La Malbaie Village	8,000	2.CG0	2,000	4,000	Les Eboulements	8,000	2,000	2,0u0	4,000	Pointe au Pic	5,000	1,250	1,250	2,500	Riviere du Gouffre	5,000	1,250	1,250	2,500	Ste. Agnes de Murray-Bay Par-	ish	6,000	1,800	1,800	2,400	1,483 20	St. Etienne de la Malbaie	8,000	2,000	2,000	4,000	1	
9S8
Questions



COAL-CONSUMPTION, IMPORTS, DRAWBACKS

Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: 1.	What was the total consumption of coal in Canada for the fiscal year 1930-1931, specifying varieties ?
2.	What quantity of coal was imported into Canada for the fiscal year 1930-1931, stating countries of origin and amounts from each; also specifying varieties as to bituminous, anthracite, anthracite screenings and coke?
3.	What amount was paid individuals and firms in Canada in the fiscal year 1930-1931
under drawback item 1019, giving names and addresses to whom paid in each instance?
4.	What amount was paid to individuals and firms in Canada in the fiscal year 1930-1931 under drawback item 1049, giving names and addresses to whom paid in each instance?
5.	What was the total amount of money paid out under all drawback items in Canada, concerning coal, in the fiscal year 1930-1931, giving names and addresses to whom paid in each instance ?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Coal available for consumption, fiscal year 1930-31-
Short tons
Anthracite	 3,946,987
Bituminous	 22,633,492
Lignite	 3,122,467
SubTutuminous	   544,145
Total	 30,247,091
2. Item Coal-anthracite, grate, egg,	Unit	Country	Quantitystove, nut and pea	Short ton	Great Britain	
French E. Indies	
Germany	
Russia	
United States	.. .. 908,952 . .. 1,122 . .. 11,480Coal-anthracite, buckwheat, rice, barley and similar	Totals	. .. 3,627,524sized	Short ton	Great Britain	
United States	. .. 310,163Coal-bituminous, and coal,	Totals	. .. 319,463n.o.p	Short ton	Great Britain..	145,375Newfoundland	
United States	. .. 12,854,544Coal-lignite, and lignite	Totals	dust	
Coal-ex-warehoused for	Short ton	United States	. .. 16,568ship's stores	Short ton	United States	Coke	Short ton	Great Britain	
United States	
Totals	. .. 1,001,445
Questions
3.	8513,868.57. It is contrary to usage to give such information as it would disclose the business of individual concerns.
4.	$599,849.79. It is contrary to usage to give such information as it would disclose the business of individual concerns.
5.	$1,157,679.43. It is contrary to usage to give such information as it would disclose the business of indivdual concerns.



POSTMASTER AT WINDSOR MILLS, QUEBEC

Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Was Mr. Auguste Provenclier, postmaster at Windsor Mills, Quebec, dismissed from his office?
2.	If so, on what date, and why?
3.	Was an inquiry held previous to his dismissal, and if not, why?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	From 9th April, 1931, on account of unsatisfactory management.
3.	Post office was frequently inspected and action was taken on reports submitted by the district superintendent, Montreal.



BONAVENTURE COUNTY-WORKS FOREMEN

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Have foremen been appointed for the works now being done at Fleurant, St. Omer, Carleton, and St. Charles de Caplan, in the county of Bonaventure?
2.	If so, what are their names?
3.	If not, what is the reason of the delay?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1,	2 and 3. No foremen to be appointed by Department of Public Works, as works mentioned are being done by contract.
Application has been made to the Civil Service Commission for the appointment of inspectors in all these cases.



MONTREAL-POSTAL PARCEL COLLECTION

Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Who is at present in charge of the collection of postal parcels in the city of Montreal?
2.	If a contract was granted for that purpose, on what date was it granted, and what are "the conditions of said contract?
3.	What are the names of those who had the contract before October 1, 1930?
4.	Was said contract taken away from them, and if so, were they given three months' notice?
5.	If not, why was their contract cancelled, and why were they not given three months' notice?
6.	Did their contract stipulate that they were entitled to three months' notice?
7.	Were tenders called before this contract was granted to the present contractor?
8.	If not, why?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	J. E. Laurent.
2.	A temporary agreement was authorized on the 20th October, 1930, at 70 cents per hour.
3.	A. Gour and Georges Richer.
4.	Yes-no.
5.	They were farming their contract.
6.	Yes, but the Postmaster General has the right to cancel a contract for cause without notice.
7.	No.
8.	Service is being operated under a temporary agreement.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON CIVIL SERVICE

Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Is the Beatty commission, which was appointed to hold a supplementary investigation into the salaries of civil service employees, still in operation?
2.	If so, when and where was its last sitting
held ?	.
3.	If not, on what authority was it discontinued?	.	...
4.	When will a report of its decision be made ?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Yes.	.
2.	No public hearings have been held in connection with the supplementary investigation.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Not known.



VICTORIA HARBOUR, B.C.-DREDGING

Mr. PLUNKETT:: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works do any dredging adjacent to the property of the Dalziel Box Company in Victoria harbour at Victoria, British Columbia, during the year 1930?
2.	Was an appropriation provided in the estimates of 1930 for such work?
3.	What were the terms of contract, if any, under which the work was completed?
4.	What was the total cost of such work?
5.	Upon what date was the order for such work given, and on what dates was the dredging started and work completed?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Approximately 4,000 cubic yards, overcast at 43 cents. Approximately 4,000 cubic yards, dredged and towed to dumping ground at 73 cents.
4.	$4,53683.
5.	(a) May 29, 1930; (b) commenced July 10; completed August 18, 1930.
Questions



CHURCHILL-GRAIN LOADING FACILITIES

Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: 1.	Does the government expect to be able to make a full test of the grain loading facilities at Churchill, if so, when?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to use for that purpose steamships of the Canadian National Steamships or Canadian Government Merchant Marine at present anchored at Halifax?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Yes, some time in September of present year.
2.	Requisite vessel arrangements under consideration.



CHAMBLY CANAL SUPERINTENDENT

Mr. GOULET:: What is the name of the Chambly canal superintendent?
2.	Is one Mr. Cantin in the employ of the government on the Chambly canal?
3.	If so, what are his occupation and
salary?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Mr. J. E. Robitaille.
2.	Yes.
3.	Acting canal superintendent while Mr. Robitaille is on sick leave; salary, $160 per month.



BEAUHABNOIS LIGHT, HEAT AND POWER COMPANY

Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Has the government received any notice to the effect that the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company has applied to the government of the province of Quebec for permission and has been granted the right to divert an additional 30,000 cubic feet of water per second through the Beauharnois canal?
2.	Do the plans already filed by the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company and approved by the government, enable the company to divert the above mentioned 30,000 cubic feet of water per second through its canal ?
3.	If it is necessary for the government to approve of the plans of the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company to allow them to divert this additional 30,000 cubic feet of water per second, is it the intention of the government to approve of such plans without giving the house an opportunity of considering the said application?
4.	Does the government approve and concur in the granting by the province of Quebec to the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company of the right to divert the said 30,000 cubic feet of water per second through the Beauharnois canal?
5.	In whom is the legal title to this 30,000 cubic feet of water vested?
6.	Is the government of the opinion that P.C. No. 422 dated March 8, 1929, is legal and valid in so far as it purports to grant the rights and privileges therein contained to the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company?
fMr. H. A. Stewart.]


Mr. BENNETT:: Before No. 9 is finally
disposed of,.Mr. Speaker, it will be observed by the house that a number of these questions are of a legal character, with respect to which I do not think the government is called upon to express its views. The fourth asks for the opinion of the government, which it is not bound to give; the same may be said with respect to the sixth; the third is in the same category. So with the exception of the first and second, I think these questions are such as should not be answered.


Mr. GARDINER:: Stands.


Mr. SPEAKER:: No. 9 stands.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS-RAILWAY BARGE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE' (Vancouver Centre):
1.	Did the Vancouver board of harbour commissioners recently purchase a railway barge ?
2.	If so, was this barge purchased in the United States?
3.	Who arranged such purchase?
4.	What are the dimensions of this barge?
5.	AVhen was this barge originally constructed?
6.	What was the purchase price?
7.	What was the cost of towing this barge to Vancouver?
8.	What was the cost of insurance on the said barge?.
9.	Prom whom was the barge acquired?
10.	Was the barge acquired from an American corporation or through an agency?
11.	In whose name was the barge cleared through the American customs?
12.	To whom was the insurance on the barge paid?
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, with reference to No. 26, I see the hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie, Vancouver) is not in his place, but it is a question with respect to which the government would be glad if the house itself would determine what action should be taken, because all that could be done by us is to write a letter to the harbour commissioners asking them for the information and then transmit it to the house. The government itself is in no sense responsible for wrhat action was taken or for the manner in which this railway barge was purchased, if it was purchased. What I know about it is what I see in the newspapers; beyond that I am not advised. Perhaps if my right hon. friend would look into the matter we could arrive at some common understanding as to how such questions should be dealt with. The tabling of information received from these harbour commissions does not in any sense pledge the government as to its accuracy; the government is bound only by the information received.

Questions


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker,
I believe the practice followed by the previous administration was that indicated at the moment by the Prime Minister. The harbour boards were written to by the minister, their attention was directed to the question, they were asked for the requisite information, and subsequently the minister gave the information to the house as coming from the harbour boards themselves. I do not think that more than that is expected.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question stands.
lacolle immigration office


Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	Who is the officer in charge of the immigration office at Lacolle, Quebec?
2.	On what date was he appointed to this position?
3.	Was he appointed by the Civil Service Commission?
4.	Where wras he located before coming to Lacolle?
5.	Is he a veteran of the great war?
6.	If so, what is his unit number?
7.	Does he speak and write fluently the two languages of the country?
8.	What is his salary?	.
9. What are the names and the years of service of each one of the other employees of the immigration office staff at Lacolle?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Henry McMillan.
2.	April 1, 1931.
3.	Yes.
4.	He was employed as supervising relieving inspector and detailed for duty, as required, at ports of entry on the international boundary in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
5.	No.
6.	See answer to No. 5.
7.	Speaks and writes English fluently.
S.	581,920 per annum.
9.
	Names	Years of Service
c.	Commette	
22J.	A. L'Ecuyer	
18A.	H. Clarkson	
16H.	E. Lagare	
10L.	H. Laporte	C.	F. Millard	
2L.	Lemothe	
1P.	Poulin



SUBSIDIES TO PROVINCES

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What was the amount due each province as subsidy, either regular or special, for the fiscal year 1930-31?
2.	What amount was paid each province during that period?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 1 and 2.
Province	Amount
Ontario	$ 2,642,611 68
Quebec	
2,256,419	88Nova Scotia	
1,536,841	28*New Brunswick	
1,268.765	76**Manitoba	
6,478,618	98tBritish Columbia	
738,816	66Prince Edward Island	
596,931	88tAlberta	
1,670.435	00Saskatchewan	
1,938,295	00
* Including special grant of SS75,O0O.
** Including special grant of $600,000. t Including special payment of $4,822,842.72 under natural resources agreement.
t Including special grant of $125,000.



BAIE STE-CATHERINE WHARF

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What sum of money was voted last year for the construction of a wharf at Baie Ste-Catherine, county of Saguenay?
2.	What was the nature of said works?
3.	What was the total approximate cost of the said works?
4.	By whom were they recommended?
5.	Were plans and specifications and estimates prepared in connection with said contemplated works?
6.	Were tenders called in order that the above mentioned works might be started with the moneys voted at the last regular session of 1930?
7.	If not, why?	.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	$25,090.
2.	Construction of a wharf.
3.	$104,200.
4.	Municipality of Baie Ste.-Oatherine, . chamber of commerce of Chicoutimi, voyag-eurs de commerce de Quebec, Rev. T. Simard, and P. F. Casgrain, M.P.
5.	Plans and specifications cannot be completed until negotiations concluded with Price Bros.
6.	No.
7.	See answer to No. 5.



NAVIGABLE CANALS

Mr. SPEAKMAN:: 1.	What is the total mileage of navigable canals in Canada at the present time?
2.	What has been the total federal expenditure in respect of these canals up to the end of the last fiscal year, or the time of the last accounting, for the purpose of:	(a) construction; (b) maintenance; and (c) operation?
3.	What fees or other charges are made by the federal government in respect of the use of these canals?
Questions

4.	What has been the total revenue collected by the federal government in respect of these canals up to the end of the last fiscal year, or the time of the last accounting, and from what sources ?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Miles
Primary canals	 75-92
Secondary canals	 433-48
Total	 509-40
2.
Capital expenditure to March 31,
1930	S 225,909,707
Heavy repairs	 16,036,444
Maintenance	 26,009,161
Operation	 32,442,181
Total	$300,397,493
Capital expenditure above referred to includes $20,593,865 by the Imperial government prior to Confederation.
3.	Canal tolls were abolished following the 1903 season of navigation.
4.	Total revenue received to March 31, 1930, $27,139,532.
* Since the abolition of canal tolls, these revenues have consisted of elevator fees, hydraulic and other rentals, wharfage, etc.
For the year following the abolition of tolls, 1904, these revenues amounted to $79,536.
For 1928 they amounted to $1,355,677.
For 1929 they amounted to $1,230,332.
For 1930 they amounted to $1,043,647.



POSTMASTER AT PONT VIATJ, QUE.

Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: 1.	Was Mr. J. B. Arthur Primeau, of Pont Yiau, Laval county, dismissed from his office as postmaster ?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	On whose recommendation was the said dismissal made?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Inconvenient location of post office.
3.	Postmaster General.



EUGENE LEVESQUE

Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Is the Post Office Department aware that one Eugene Levesque has been in the employ of the department at Montreal during the years 1928, 1929 and 1930?
2.	If so, when was he appointed?
3.	By whom was he recommended?
4.	Was his appointment approved by the Civil Service Commission, and if so, on what date?
5.	Did he pass the required examinations, and if so, when?

6.	Is the department aware that the said Levesque is an offender previously convicted, and that he has served several terms of detention in some of the penitentiaries of the country?
7.	Is he still in the employ of the department ?
8.	If not. was he dismissed or did he resign?
9.	In either case when did he cease to be in the employ of the Post Office Department, and why?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	26th January 1929.
3.	He was selected from the commission's eligible list when his name was reached.
4.	Yes, on the 25th February 1929.
5.	Yes, in October 1928.
6.	At the time Mr. Levesque was employed the department was not aware that he had a criminal record. This, however, was discovered shortly afterwards and he was assigned duty where he could be under constant supervision and where he would have no opportunity of misappropriating mail matter.
7.	No.
8.	He was dismissed.
9.	He was dismissed on the 17th February 1931 for his irregular attendance and tardiness in reporting for duty.



W. ADALBERT GUAT

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Is Mr. Adalbert Guay who was on October 27, 1930, appointed to the preliminary sorting of letters in the Quebec post office, still in the employ of the government?
2.	Is the position of preliminary sorting of letters one of those classified under the civil service law, and which must be filled through the Civil Service Commission?
3.	If so. how can the Post Office Department pay to Mr. Guay his salary if he was not appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	As an emergency appointment.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: What grants and subsidies have been granted to the Canadian Pacific Railway and to the railway lines now incorporated in the Canadian Pacific Railway?


CANADIAN CO-OPERATIVE WHEAT PRODUCERS, LIMITED-BANK LOANS
Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: 1. Is the government aware that the Canadian banks have advanced, in loans or guarantees. the sum of $68,000,000 to the Canadian Co-Operative Wheat Producers, Limited?

Questions
2.	Has the government, to date, guaranteed the banks interested in these loans in favour of wheat pools, for said amount of $68,000,000, totally or partially?
3.	If partially, up to what amount?


GLACE BAY PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: 1. What amounts have been spent yearly since 1925 on Glace Bay public building?
2.	If the work was done by tender, who was contractor and what amount was paid?
3.	If work done hy day labour, who was foreman and what rate of wages were paid?
4. What amount was spent for electric fixtures and to whom?
5.	Who did interior painting and decorating, and what amount was paid for such work?
6.	What amount of money was spent on Glace Bay harbour improvements?
7.	Was such work done by tender or day labour?
8.	If by tender, what was amount; if by day labour, what was rate of wages?
9.	How many civil service and other government employees are in active service in the town of Glace Bay?
10.	What are the names, salaries and religious affiliations of such employees?


FOREIGN-BORN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LAFLECHE;
1.	How many foreign born are in the employ of the federal government in Canada?
2.	What are their names, occupations and salary?
Mr. CAHAN:: This will stand as an order for return, on the understanding of course, as the hon. gentleman explained to the house, that "foreign born" means born outside of Canada.


PELAGIC SEALING TREATY, 1911
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BUCKLEY;
1.	Has the Dominion government received any portion of the award of $473,151.26 made on or about December 17, 1897, in connection with the seizure by the United States of America, of Canadian vessels in the Behring sea?
2.	What portion of this money remains undistributed ?
3.	Does the government intend to distribute this fund among claimants therefor, and if so, when?
4.	Has the Canadian government received any money from the United States government, direct or through the British government, under the sealing treaty made December 14, 1911, between the United States of America, Great Britain, Russia or Japan, and if so, what amounts have been received?
5.	Does the Canadian government contemplate action on behalf of Canadian citizens interested, similar to chapter 308 of the acts of the sixtyeighth congress of the United States of America, passed June 7, 1924, conferring jurisdiction on the United States district court of California, northern division to adjudicate claims of American citizens for restraining their actions in sealing in 1886 to 1896, under which, awards were made to American citizens?
6.	Is it the intention of the Canadian government that any of the moneys referred to in connection with sealing operations, shall be distributed to Canadian citizens who sustained losses by reason of the matters referred to in the arbitration, conventions and treaties above mentioned?
7.	If so, what steps are being taken to that end?
Richard Bedford Bennett: This question in any
event would have to stand as an order for return, Mr. Speaker. The question of distribution raised in the second paragraph is rather a long story, but if just a summary is required it can be provided.
Mr. SPEAKER; Stands as an order for return.
Mr. PLUNKETT;
1.	What amount of money has been received from the United States government under the Pelagic sealing treaty of 1911 for each calendar year up to December 31, 1930, inclusive?
2.	Were there any omissions of payments in any years between 1911 and 1930, and if so, for what reasons did such omissions occur?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Question No. 37, Mr. Speaker, should stand as an order for return. If all the details from 1911 to 1930 are to be furnished it will be a rather lengthy document.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Stands as an order for
return.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LAPOINTE (for Mr. St-Pere);
For a copy of all forms, memoranda and regulations issued by the Department of Labour at Ottawa, or the Director of Unemployment at Ottawa, in connection with the expenditure under the Unemployment Relief Act.

Mr. RAYMOND:: For a copy of all notices, reports, letters, rating sheets, decisions, memoranda, telegrams or other communications, and all other documents, in the possession of the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Public Works, Postmaster General's department, or any other federal department, in conection with the appointment of a caretaker for the Beau-harnois post office in month of February, 1931.



Unopposed Motions for Papers


LITTLE BRAS D'OR BRIDGE
Mr. JOHNSTONE:: For a copy of all letters, tenders and other documents regarding the building of the wharf at Little Bras d'Or bridge in the year 1929, including a return showing the cost of construction, the number of men employed, the cost of lumber, the amount earned by Fred E. Reashore and the amount earned by Mr. Fitzgerald the head builder.


MR. AUGUSTE PROVENCHER
Mr. LAPOINTE:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Auguste Provencher, postmaster at Windsor Mills, province of Quebec, and the appointment of his successor.


POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP OF EMPLOYEES
Mr. POWER (for Mr. Marcil):: For a copy of all reports made to the Department of Marine by Mr. Sirois, of Gaspe, Quebec, commissioner appointed to inquire into political partisanship of certain employees of the department.


ST. ROCH DES AULNAIES POST OFFICE
Mr. FAFARD:: For a copy of all correspondence, requests and any other documents, exchanged between the Post Office Department and any person or persons in connection with the post office of St. Roch des Aulnaies, from the 28th of July last, to date.


JOSEPH G. SMITH
Mr. REID:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, telegrams, orders and reports, between any and all officials and officers of the Department of Immigration and Colonization relating to the conduct, service, recommendations and dismissal of Joseph G. Smith, who was employed as a temporary inspector at Pacific highway, British Columbia.


INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES, NOVA SCOTIA
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HEE'NAN (for Mr. Ralston):
For a copy of all correspondence, including letters, telegrams, memoranda, received or despatched by the Minister of Fisheries or any other member of the government or any official of the government or the Civil Service Commission or any member or official thereof and any person since August 8, 1930, respecting the qualifications or fitness of applicants for, or in any way relating to the filling of the position of inspector of Fisheries for Western Nova Scotia,
And for a copy of all advertisements and of proposals, rules or memoranda showing the basis on which qualifications were to be judged,
And for a copy of the statements, supporting documents and other evidence considered by the Civil Service Commission or by the advisory

examining board, and all reports, ratings or results of the examination, oral or otherwise, which was made regarding the qualifications of all persons considered for such position, and for all orders in council relating to the filling of such position.
And for a copy of all records of investigation, letters, correspondence and other papers dated or made since August, 1929, relating to the retirement from office or dismissal of Harry H. Marshall from the position of inspector of fisheries, western division of western Nova Scotia.

Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, correspondence, and other documents, between the Department of Indian Affairs, or any of its officials, and any person or persons in Nova Scotia, regarding the dismissal or removal of Dr. F. S. Messenger, of Middleton, Nova Scotia, as Indian agent.


HON. N. W. NEWLANDS
Ernest Lapointe: For a copy of all orders in council, memoranda, correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents concerning the retirement from office of Honourable H. W. Newlands as Lieutenant-Governor of Saskatchewan, the appointment of an administrator or of administrators pending the appointment of a successor to Honourable Mr. Newlands, and the appointment of a new lieutenant-governor in replacement of Honourable Mr. Newlands.


BAIE STE. CATHERINE WHARF
Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all telegrams, memoranda, correspondence, letters, and other documents, exchanged during the years 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, between the Minister of Public Works at Ottawa and any of the officers of his department at Ottawa and Quebec, with the Highway department or the Minister of Highways of the Quebec provincial government, and the authorities of Price Brothers Company, Limited, at Quebec, regarding the construction of a wharf at Baie Ste. Catherine, Saguenay county, Quebec.


POSTMASTER AT ST. ANNE DE BEAUPRE
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a copy of all telegrams, memoranda, correspondence, letters and other documents^ in connection with the dismissal of Raoul Fortier, postmaster at Ste. Anne de Beaupre, county of Montmorency, and the appointment of his successor.


POSTMASTER AT LES EBOULEMENTS
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a copy of all telegrams, memoranda, correspondence, letters, and other documents in connection with the dismissal of J. H. Tremblay, postmaster at Les Eboulements, county of Charlevoix, and the appointment of his successor.

Unopposed Motions for Papers


POSTMASTER AT ST. IRENES LES BAINS
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a copy of all telegrams, memoranda, correspondence, letters, and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Joseph Girard, postmaster at St. Irenee les Bains, county of Charlevoix, and the appointment of his successor.


CIVIL SERVICE DISMISSALS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For a return showing the name, address, position, grade, salary, department, branch and length of service; whether given superannuation or retirement allowance or both, whether permanent or temporary and what overseas service:	(a) with Canadian expeditionary
force; (b) with Great Britain or other allies; of every civil service employee dismissed in 1931 as a result of the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces. The return to show the individuals mentioned above who have been taken back into the service after dismissal, and at what salary.


MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. VENIOT (for Mr. Cardin):: For a copy of all reports, letters, telegrams and other documents (exclusive of plans and specifications) exchanged between the Montreal harbour commission and the Department of Marine, the Department of Finance or the minister, since August, 1930, to date, regarding the construction of a wharf in the lower part of the Montreal harbour at a point called Windmill Point.


&quot;WHARF AT RIVIERE-A-LA-MARTRE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BRA3SET:
For a return showing the name of each person who worked at the wharf of Riviere-a-la-Martre during the season of 1930, the salary of each, the cost of materials and the total cost of the work.

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, affidavits, inquiries, memoranda and any other documents, in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Francois Tremblay, fog horn engineer at Ste. Felicite, county of Matane, and the appointment of his successor.


POSTMASTER AT LAKEVILLE
Mr. YENIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in the possession of the government relative to the dismissal of Samuel G. Barter, postmaster at Lakeville, Carleton county, New Brunswick.


NORDIN VERSUS REX
Mr. WHITE (Mount Royal):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, in the possession of the government, relative to the case of Nordin vs. Rex, being an action for reparation arising out of the loss of ss. Alette.


MR. D. W. MORRISON, DELEGATE TO GENEVA
Mr. McGREGOR:: For a copy of all correspondence, including letters, telegrams, memoranda, and other documents, exchanged between the Department of Labour, or any of its officials, or the Department of National Defence and Mr. D W Morrison of Glace Bay, president of the United Mine Y orkers, regarding the appointment of the said D. W. Morrison as a delegate to Geneva; also a return showing the amount of money paid to the said D. W. Morrison in connection with his said trip, as salary and expenses.


DISTILLERY AT BERWICK, N.S.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. IL8LEY:
For a copy of all correspondence, including letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the government of Alova Scotia, or any member thereof, or any person or persons, and the government of Canada, or any minister or department thereof, or any of the officials thereof relating to the establishment of a distillery at Berwick, Kings county, Nova Scotia; or the granting of a permit or licence for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor at Berwick, Nova Scotia; or relating to one Richard Steppanski in reference to such matter or matters.

Charles Gavan Power: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, certificates, reports of examination, rating and marks obtained by each competitor, recommendations in favour of any competitor by members of parliament, or others, with respect to an examination held in Quebec during the month of March, 1931, as a result of which an eligible list was established and promulgated in the Caanda Gazette of March 21. 1931, for the position of cleaner and helper, Department of Public Works.


POSTMASTERS IN BONAVENTURE COUNTY
Clarence Joseph Veniot: For a copy of reports made by Mr. Simard, barrister, and inquiry commissioner, Rimouski, Quebec, to the Postmaster General, in connection with the conduct of certain postmasters in the county of Bonaventure, accused of political partisanship.


L'lSLE VERTE RURAL MAIL ROUTE
Mr. POULIOT:: _ For a copy of all correspondence and reports in the possession of Post Office Department in reference to the rural mail route of L'lsle Verte, Quebec.


SASKATOON ELECTORAL DISTRICT-PAYMENT OF CONSTABLES
Mr. TOTZKE:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Mr. P. R. Kreutzwieser, deputy returning officer for poll No. 53 of the electoral dis*
Motions jor Papers

trict of Saskatoon, and the Chief Electoral Office, and the Auditor General or any officer of either of the departments concerned, relating to the payment for services rendered, of castables appointed to the said poll No. 53 of the electoral district of Saskatoon.


POSTMASTER AT PONTBRIAND, QUE.
Charles Gavan Power: For a copy of all reports and documents in connection with an inquiry held at Pontbriand, county of Megantic, Quebec, in connection with the services of Alphonse Dupuis as postmaster, and also copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents, exchanged between the Postmaster General or any employee of his department and J. T. Beaudoin, defeated candidate; and also for a copy of the order m council in connection with this matter.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: For a copy of all petitions, resolutions, recommendations, letters, telegrams, or synopsis of verbal representations, addressed or communicated to the Prime Minister, Minister of Agriculture or any other minister, recommending the pegging of -wheat or grain prices, from any farmers organization, pool selling agency or unit thereof, municipality, board of trade, individual, or provincial premier from each of the three prairie provinces, since August 1st last, and the individual replies thereto.


William Richard Motherwell: In the light of information given the house by the right hon. the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett), regarding this question, showing that there were many thousands of such petitions, and the impracticability of giving copies of all, it would be quite satisfactory to me to have this order discharged now. I will substitute a much less comprehensive order later on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank the hon. gentleman.


IMPORTATION OF OIL OR OIL PRODUCTS
Mr. YOUNG:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged bet-ween any or all of the Canadian oil refining companies and any department of the government in regard to the importation of oil or oil products.	*


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is hardly necessary to say that from 1867 there has been a large mass of correspondence in connection with the matter. Perhaps the hon. member will limit to a year.


Edward James Young: Since the last Mayday
budget.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since May 1, 1930.


Edward James Young: Yes.
Motion as amended agreed to.


AMALGAMATION OF WEYBURN SECURITY BANK AND IMPERIAL BANK
Mr. COOTE:: For a copy of all correspondence, including letters, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the government in connection with the amalgamation of the Weyburn Security Bank and the Imperial Bank of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this motion, I would point out that under the statutes certain correspondence would be of a confidential nature, namely, that which passed between the inspector general and the banks. Subject to that reservation, the return will be tabled.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the motion carry
with the reservation made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett)?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. CARDIN:: For a copy of all contracts, agreements or understandings, between the Montreal harbour commission and the provincial government of the province of Quebec, and the city of Montreal, determining the contribution to the cost of the Montreal harbour bridge of the two last named.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, copies of
communications, by-laws, resolutions and orders in council indicate understandings. There can be no such thing as an understanding except it be evidenced by some form of document, and I think the hon. member should strike out the words "or understandings." He not being in his place, the motion might well stand.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member in
whose name this motion stands not being in his seat, the motion will stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The same thing might
be said as to obtaining information from the Montreal harbour commission. We can only get that information from them and cannot be responsible for more than we receive.
Motion stands.


FEDERAL STATE MEDICINE
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, a measure of federal state medicine would be in the best interests of the Canadian people.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, when I commenced
the practice of medicine some twenty-seven

Federal Stale Medicine
years ago it was in a suburb across the river from Winnipeg. The residents of this suburb were of the labouring class and were not very well off. It may be that a few of them found no difficulty in balancing the family budget, but I fancy the vast majority had to struggle pretty hard with the essential problems of life.
Those were the old typhoid days, this disease commencing about midsummer and running on past midwinter. There was no question about the doctors being occupied, they were kept busy from the onset of these epidemics until the disease petered out, at which time other infections occupied their attention. These epidemics were a severe test of the resources of such districts as that in which I practised. Sickness is always a deplorable matter to be faced by any household; there is always the immediate possibility of the expense of putting a patient in a hospital, there is the cost of medicine and sickroom supplies, the procuring of nursing help and one thing and another. If by any chance the patient happens to be the breadwinner, there is the double disadvantage of having no funds coming in during the time of sickness. On several occasions men have said to me after a sickness lasting from six to twelve weeks that they were not very anxious to get better, they did not see why one would want to get better when so far behind because of his illness and with no possible chance of catching up. In such circumstances when the patient himself is behind financially and is not in a state of health to take up the burdens of life, no medical man can expect him to come forward with medical fees when he is unable to purchase bread, butter and potatoes. In those days it occurred to me frequently-it may be that the wish was father to the thought-that some controlling body, be it the municipality, the city council, the province or anything you like, might very readily establish some system of public health service which would include care of and attendance on those people, thereby securing and guaranteeing an efficient medical service for such cases as those I have mentioned, and at the same time giving the medical man a living wage. At that time I little dreamed that I would ever bring such a matter as this to the attention of this honourable house. But though, as the years went by, there was not the same, shall I say consideration, for the necessity of state medicine, still I have always felt it would be a splendid thing, whether of a provincial or a federal nature, for the people of Canada. So I am happy to-day
to submit this resolution and my argument in connection with it.
In order to pursue the line of my argument, I shall have to follow pretty closely the written text. I trust in so doing I shall not transgress the rules of the house. The resolution standing in my name reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, a measure of federal state medicine would be in the best interests of the Canadian people.
In bringing such a matter to the attention of the house, one must necessarily make certain more or less hypothetical statements, the rationality of which, however, will, I trust *be evident. Thus, the wealth of any country and particularly of this country was originally purchased, not by gold or silver but by the labour of the people. Efficient labour can be the product only of a strong and healthy body. The wealth of Canada must, therefore, depend on the health and strength of her people; that is to say, Canada's health is essentially Canada's wealth. I have travelled far enough afield to have had ample opportunity to realize the deep, inherited love I have for this land of my birth, the land also of my forbears; yet, notwithstanding the vast expanse of her domain, the fertility of her soil, the beauty of her lakes, the grandeur and majesty of her mountains, and the abundance of her natural resources in fish, timber, coal and minerals, I am bound to say that Canada was never a garden of Eden. No honest person who ever came here lived without toil. From the earliest days of Canada's history to the present, men of courage, men of resource, men of faith, men of industry, men strong in body and soul-these and these only have succeeded and have wrested from this great land of possibilities the treasure which has lain in her bosom. No weakling's country this, but a country for strong men and strong women, and if Canada is to make the best of her heritage we must see to it that her people are strong in intellect, strong in purpose, strong in body and limb.
Ill	health and disease are neither necessary nor inevitable. The natural germ cell is not the subject of inherent disease. I emphasize the word "natural", for nature endeavours to give us all an even start. The vital principle of health that has come down to us through the ages is an integral part of the protoplasm of each living cell which, given a fair chance, shall surely prevail. The living cell begets cells of similar order and the inherent properties of the parent cell are transmitted to the offspring. It actually happens that the characteristics of the parent are reproduced in the child. Intelligent parents

Federal State Medicine

beget intelligent children; musical parents beget musical children, and the issue of healthy, sturdy stock in favourable surroundings will come into life blessed with similar strength and stamina. But if an individual be the product of an unhealthy father by an invalid mother, and begotten in an atmosphere of poverty and distress, one can appreciate the unfair start with which such an offspring commences life. From the beginning of history to the comparatively recent past, survival of the fittest was the rule of life. Weakling baibies seldom survived; delicate children often failed to mature, and at best fell far short of the allotted span. As late as the middle of the last century cholera claimed its victims in Canada by the hundred; smallpox wiped out whole communities; diphtheria left homes bereft of children. Each summer dozens of babies perished. Typhoid fever was more fatal in time of war than the attack of the enemy and in cases of severe scarlet fever one could but sit helplessly by and look for a certain and speedy demise. None but the strong, the sturdy, the virile, might, once taken, hope to escape death in those former fierce ravages of disease, and many of the best were carried away.
Now all this has changed. We hear no more of cholera. Smallpox now is but a mild disease, and though still seen, seldom destroys life. The same thing is true of other diseases. By the march and conquest of medical science all these formerly dread forms of disease have been shorn of their terror and tragic import. By isolation, vaccination, immunization, improved technique and methods of diagnosis, by a vastly enhanced knowledge of the cause and nature of disease, and by many wonderful curative discoveries, the human race is now highly protected from the onslaughts of disease, and the weakling, the susceptible and the predisposed find themselves almost as secure as their sturdy and more robust fellows.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From everything but
common colds.


John Power Howden: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


John Power Howden: Yes, "hear, hear." The
public however, rich and poor alike, have been educated to appreciate their value and to demand their application. Unfortunately, to have the advantage of these aids to health is a costly matter which is in no way the fault of the doctor. The result is that the well to do who have ample money are not affected by the cost of medical service, and the cost is of no great importance to them. The poorer classes, those who attend the hospital out-door department and find their way into the open wards, obtain their medical attendance free of charge, and for that reason the cost is of no moment to them. There is a class, a large class which ranges between the well to do and those who cannot possibly pay for the cost of medical care, who prefer to engage their own doctor and to pay their own expenses. So greatly has the cost of this medical attention increased in recent years that it is often extremely difficult to obtain such aid, and not infrequently following a long illness those people are financially crippled, perhaps for life. This class represents a majority of our citizens. They are the people who form the basis of our society; they are our smaller business men, our tradesmen, our clerks, our railway men, our farmers and so on. They are the people who actually carry on the business and
Federal State Medicine

develop the wealth of the country. Surely if the state owes a service to any it cannot afford to neglect them. For these reasons I would have state medicine accessible to all so that this class might benefit from its operation. I have suggested before that the existing forms of the adminstration of state medicine failed to attack the problem from the right angle. The error however is not peculiar to them, it is general. The practice is to call a doctor only when we are sick. Often the doctor is called only when we are very sick and too often when the illness is too far advanced to mend. A system of periodic physical examination would discover early stages of disease which could often be checked and entirely removed, the person being saved from a lengthy and costly illness, and perhaps from death. These examinations would bring to light many mild defects in children such as big tonsils, bad teeth, adenoids, rickets and defective eyesight, the elimination of which would tremendously enhance the health and prospects of the individual. On the other hand the venereal menace could no longer hide behind shame or criminal indifference.	Such assistance
would replace and do away with all existing systems. It should be infinitely more effectual and much less costly, depending more largely on prevention than on cure, and eliminating overlapping. It should aim to direct and control the health of the whole nation; that is, it should be nation wide in its application. To be nation wide it would have to be national. It should be contributory and compulsory, requiring at least once yearly an exact enumeration and record of the people of the country who would be required by law to report for regular periodic examination. This is the first phase of the scheme, the other of course is the actual attendance on sick persons. To defray the cost of administration a regular percentage tax would be collected from the earnings or income of every wage earner, salary earner and person in receipt of income. This would entitle the contributor and his or her dependents to all the benefits of a system which would be uniform for all. The actual medical work could be carried on by the plan now obtaining with the workmen's compensation boards. Or the government could provide a list of medical men and women regularly trained and qualified for the various services. These trained people would act conjointly in the form of a loose clinic. The list should provide a wide range of choice, but any person wishing special service and attention not provided for by the system could obtain the same. Of 
course such service would be at his own expense. The system could be administered by specially set up governmental machinery or by a system of boards resembling the provincial compensation boards. Indeed, the two might be combined.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a rough sketch imperfectly set forth of a scheme for universal national health assurance. Doubtless it is open to grave criticism and it may not appeal to the serious consideration of many hon. members. Certain it is however there is need for improvement in the application of our most excellent science of medicine, and I can think of no better plan.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words concerning the resolution before the house. I think the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) is to be congratulated on bringing his resolution before this body. It seems to me that the subject of health insurance is as important as that of life insurance if indeed it is not more so. Throughout Canada to-day there are thousands of people trying to sell life insurance policies, but so far in the parliament of Canada the sulbject of public health has not been pressed as it should have been. To-day health is largely in the hands of private monopoly. I refer particularly to the care of health or cure of sickness. Although we are only too glad to pay a compliment to that large body of men, the medical profession, at the same time we place them in an invidious position, when we wait until we become sick before we seek their advice and pay them for it. It seems to me that the procedure at present followed is entirely the reverse of what it should be. Some years ago a medical practitioner in the legislature of Alberta said, "The trouble is that you are paying doctors only for making people well, and not for keeping them well. When you reverse that process you will have a lot less sickness." To-day the doctor knows full well that if all people are well and he is not called upon to make them well he will receive no pay. This being so, he would not be human if at times he felt rather relieved when there was a certain amount of sickness prevalent. As the preceding speaker has said, we should pay our medical practitioners for keeping people well rather than for making them well. Some years ago when the panel system was adopted in Great Britain there was a great outcry from the medical profession, but I am glad to say that to-day most medical practitioners are entirely in favour of it.
In my opinion, Mr. .Speaker, health is equally as important as education, if not more

Federal Slate Medicine
important, for without health education is quite a secondary consideration. Health treatment to-day is limited to the depth of the individual's purse, and we find that during hard times the greater proportion of the people are not in a position financially to have themselves or their families medically attended.
No one wishes to be a pauper, no one wishes to have recourse to charity, and yet during this economic depression more and more of our people who have the misfortune to become sick must rely on charity in one form or another. Rather than do this they will put off calling for advice from the doctor until often times it is too late. I understand that sickness costs Canada about 1311,000,000 a year,
93 per cent of which is borne by the individual.
I am informed by medical men that death from such diseases as diphtheria, typhoid, tuberculosis, is preventable if the patient is medically treated at an early stage of the dlS6 ELS6
I have under my hand some extraordinary figures showing the seriousness of sickness from a national standpoint. During the period of bringing into effect the Military Service Act there were 465,984 voluntary enlistments. Of these nearly 45,000 were stricken off the rolls as medically unfit. Of the balance, some 300,000 odd, General Sir Arthur Currie, speaking in Montreal on September 12, 1924, before the Taxation and Civil Service Convention, said:
Something like 100,000 men went overseas who were physically unfit for service, and cost the country some $150,000,000.
Coming now to the Military Service Act period, the total number of applicants for enlistment was 264,355. Of this number only 83,355 were accepted, and 181,000, or 68 per cent, were rejected. I feel confident that had we had throughout Canada a proper public health service such a condition would not have existed. Quoting from a pamphlet published a year or so ago by the Canadian Council of Child Welfare, I read:
Of 232 205 children born in Canada last year 7 091 were still-born; 23.671 died before their first birthday; 30,973 died before their fifth birthday; 1,314 mothers died in childbirth, lhe greater number of these deaths were preventable.
May I conclude these remarks by quoting a statement made by the present Prime Minister during the course of a discussion last session on the question of the necessity of fulltime health units throughout Canada, a subject very similar to that covered by this resolution. He said:
Touching the necessity for the establishment of health units, nothing need be said. I think the case is complete and almost answered betore it is stated.
With those words, Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree, and I very heartily support the resolution brought forward by the hon. member for St. Boniface.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to compliment the mover of the resolution on bringing the subject before the house, for undoubtedly it is of very great importance and deserving of very serious consideration. It is too large a question to be answered offhand, but federal state medicine is in the foreground, and I certainly think the time is coming when something along these lines will have to be undertaken federally for the benefit of our people. We have made great strides in medicine during recent years, but the advance has for the most part been in the treatment of disease by the use of serums, a treatment which does not come within the reach of the man of ordinary means. I find in practice that many of our hospitals are too expensive to be taken advantage of by many of our people. Several of our provincial governments are considering the question of health protection, and in Nova Scotia a department of health has been established. The minister in charge is organizing district boards of health, composed of medical men, to look after the health of those who are unable to pay for medical attendance. As I said before,
I think the matter deserves our very serious consideration, and again I compliment the hon. member on introducing his resolution.


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Mr. Speaker, the mover of this resolution (Mr. Howden) has put before us in a striking way the great importance of national health. Its importance has not been fully appreciated m the past but to-day it is pretty generally recognized that the health of the people is a matter of first consideration, and that disease means national disaster. The education of the people in health matters is steadily advancing, and we ought not to forget what is being done in this direction. I do not suggest that everything is being done that might be done, far from it, but the fact is that persistent work is being carried on in the prevention of sickness. We must not lose sight of all the benefit societies which assist in care of sickness-the benevolent societies, corporations, companies, social workers and various other organizations whch arrange for the medical care of the people, particularly the poorer sections of the community. I am not putting that forward as a broad, comprehensive plan or as being sufficient. There it is, however. It is useful, and so we have it at the present time.
Federal State Medicine

The mover in his resolution suggests that it is in the interests of this country to have federal state medicine. As we know, state medicine has been instituted and has grown in the European countries. Not so very long ago it was instituted in Great Britain-1911, I think it was. But it has not yet reached the American continent to any considerable extent. It has developed in the older countries because, there, there are such large communities among whom poverty is greater than it is in Canada. But it is coming to Canada; I believe the people are beginning to accept the idea that we shall have some plan of state or organized medicine. I do not say, with the mover, that this will include the whole population. I do not think so. But that is merely one phase of the question. There are many proposals with respect to state medicine, including or excluding many varieties that are being put forward. But with respect to the general question, I have sympathy with the idea of medical treatment being provided in some organized way for those who require it. I do not suggest that it come under the Dominion government. I am supporting and I am sympathetic with the idea that there should be a system of medical treatment in this country for those who need it. Whether it shall be provided by the provincial government or by the federal government, or by a combination of the two, is a different matter. At the present time, as we know, hospitals are under the control of the provincial governments. Similarly, nursing and medical qualifications and board of health requirements are all under provincial control. The mover of the resolution has not discussed the question why it should be placed under the federal government. We must have regard-if I may whisper the word-to the British North America Act, which I know is always suggested as the last resource. I do not think it is the last resource. There must be something laid down, recognized and accepted, as to whose responsibility it is. At the present time, I would submit, this matter is largely under the provincial governments.
I he federal government is concerned with certain health measures, but ordinary medical care is at present under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. There is no doubt about that, and that is a point which would need to be considered.
There is also the question of cost to be considered. Even supposing it were a federal undertaking, what would the cost be? Nothing has been said with respect to this question, although my hon. friend to my right has given some indication of the loss. Whether 
it was the economic loss or the actual cost of medical treatment I am not quite clear.
I may direct the attention of the house to the proceedings, in relation to this question, of two sessions of a special committee-the industrial and international relations committee, I believe-and I would commend a reading of those proceedings of 1928 and 1929, which I have myself very recently gone through. They give some important information. I believe that in many particulars very excellent evidence was given at those two sessions of the special committee. But what I do refer to is the enormous cost, not only the loss through sickness, but the consequent cost which would devolve upon the country were the federal government to undertake such a system. That, of course, is an important question of policy for the government. At the present time the matter is under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments and I do not suggest in any way making any change in that regard. I do think that we can do much in the provision of treatment for those who need it, but that does not necessarily come as a federal measure. The mover has brought the matter forward very well, although I will not say he has done so fully; the question is such a vast one that it would not be possible to present it fully on this occasion. But it is a matter that must be fully understood by the country, and I believe the hon. member would serve his purpose quite well, having brought it to the attention of the house, to withdraw his motion.


Hon. RAYMOND MORAND (East Essex):: If I may be permitted just a few words on this resolution, it certainly comes as a pleasant thing to be able to compliment a fellow doctor on the other side on a non-controversial subject on which we can both agree. The question of state medicine is undoubtedly but one phase of a much larger question, that of social security, which the people to-day are asking from the state. The question of unemployment and unemployable people and the question of state medicine are bound up pretty much into one larger problem, namely, the security which the people are looking for from the government because of the general change that has taken place in industrial conditions in the country.
Probably state medicine comes forward more now because of the fact that the cost of medicine has increased very materially. That cost is in no way due to the medical men; it is rather a reflection of the advance in the sciences. With that -advance the cost

Federal State Medicine
has increased. There can be but one basic reason why we should discuss state medicine, and that would be to carry to the people of the country the full benefit of the advance that has been made in the science of medicine. And that advance is one which undoubtedly is becoming very costly. There has been a very larg increase in the cost of mechanical equipment. The cost of X-ray apparatus, of laboratory supplies, of laboratory applications and of specialty aid in diagnosis, has become so great as to be almost beyond the means of the average individual. Consequently, the principal argument upon which state medicine can be based is that because of the inability of the people to receive the full benefit of these advances we must make some provision to give it to them.
One of the hon. members in this corner of the house made the statement that medicine was made available to the individual to the extent of his purse. To one who has practised medicine as long as I have among the labouring people, those who earn their daily bread, that remark certainly comes as a surprise because up to this time I believe a sincere effort has been made by medical practitioners to extend everything there is in medicine to the masses irrespective of whether or not they can pay for it. It is rather a strange thing that in this country, and in practically all America, we give more time and attention to the care of cattle, wheat, railroads, roads and most everything else than we do to health. The reason for that apparently is that the medical profession has up to this time made its own way and has succeeded very well in giving the attention needed by the individual. The question of the remuneration of the medical practitioner, while it may have a bearing on the matter of giving a proper return to the profession, is not the basis upon which state medicine can be argued. Considering the amount of time spent in acquiring the necessary knowledge, the amount of capital needed to enter practice and the amount of mental and mechanical effort required, the medical profession is to-day the poorest paid profession. It may be interesting to some of the legal profession, who have to listen to medical men once in a while, to know that it costs the city of Toronto just exactly five times as much to look after its legal affairs as it does to run its department of health. Of course, it will have to be left to the people to decide which is the more important.
This resolution opens up a very wide field and it certainly cannot be discussed in full in one day. The matter is being talked of in
medical societies and among medical men all over Canada. There is a very general desire on the part of medical men to extend to the people generally the full benefit of the advances made in medical science and to make available all there is in medical science and in preventive medicine, which latter is by far the more important consideration, but much of this work is becoming so costly as to necessitate a complete revolution in the economics of medicine.
In industrial life to-day there is unknown ownership and distant control which does not furnish that paternal or fraternal care given to workers in the days when employers knew their employees and when they possessed that sense of responsibility which to-day is lacking. There is no doubt but that the people are looking to the state to bring about a proper organization, to evolve some way of regulating and making possible the application in a general way of all the advances of this science. To my mind, the question of cost does not enter into the matter. Once we admit the principle that the benefits of medicine must be extended to all people, whether paupers, rich or between the two, it becomes then simply a matter of transferring the cost from the individual to the state. It does not make a particle of difference what that cost is, it is a matter of distributing the cost and putting it upon those who are well able to stand it, instead of allowing it to rest upon those who cannot.
I believe it to be well worth the time of the house to discuss this matter, and personally I would like to see the question referred to a committee which could make a study of all its phases. Action should not be delayed; we must in the near future be able to extend to the people as a whole the benefits of all the advances which have been made in medicine.


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, as the seconder of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden), I wish to make a few observations.


Ernest Lapointe: Is the hon. member a doctor?


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I must ask the forgiveness of the house for my inability to express myself in the terms used by the medical men. If I understood him aright, I was rather surprised to hear the hon. Minister of National Health (Mr. MacLaren) say that this resolution should be withdrawn-if I did not understand him aright, then I stand corrected

in view of the fact that a resolution containing
Federal State Medicine

a similar principle was presented last year by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), reading as follows:
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.


Robert James Manion: That is a different matter.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: There is not a great deal of difference between the principles contained in the two resolutions. If the federal government is not prepared to carry out this resolution to the fullest extent, probably it could offer some suggestion as to the making of grants to the different provinces which take up this matter.
As I said before, I was surprised at the hon. Minister of National Health suggesting that this resolution should be withdrawn, because in Hansard of March 3, 1930, I find some remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). The motion which I have mentioned was under discussion, and in speaking as to the subsidies and grants by the federal government to the different provinces, he said:
Those subsidies were, in some instances based upon arbitrary considerations, in others on population. As time has gone on the provinces have received larger and larger grants from the federal exchequer. Why? Because the provinces are limited to direct forms of taxation, and the Dominion may raise taxes by any method or form of taxation. Therefore it follows that taxes can be raised much more readily by the Dominion taxing power, which has recourse to many sources of revenue, than by the provinces. The customs taxes in this country last year amounted to over $200,000,000. Those customs taxes were paid by all the people of Canada, and the Dominion government had the power to appropriate that sum of money to any purpose it thought to be of national interest.
Then further on he stated:
There are large sums of money appropriated to various purposes that are expended by the bodies into whose hands the moneys are entrusted ^ without regard to the fact that they may not raise them because they have no taxing power.	fa
This is another quotation:
* ^ff'e'ffj'er, it is national health, not provincial health. Keep this in mind: the province deals with the municipal situation, with smallpox and matters of that kind; the province deals with epidemics in the communities and m some cases with hospitalization. There is however, a field in which the province may not! it seems to me, properly function, and that is the creation of national wealth by ensuring the health of the Canadian people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is about health
units, a vastly different thing.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: It was on the same
principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I expected that the
Prime Minister would say no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the hon. member
was not disappointed.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Further on the right hon. gentleman said:
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. . . . Would any appropriation that might be made by this parliament to the provinces equal one-half the money represented by the loss to this country in one year through illness and inability of Canadians to work? . . .
But no province can undertake to deal with the subject of health as a problem concerning the nation as a whole, and one affecting the creation of greater national wealth in the truest and broadest sense I have mentioned, unless they have a grant in aid from this parliament.
Further on he said:
Let us approach this problem, not as a problem of jurisdiction, not as a problem as to whether or not under the British North America Act it is a matter of provincial responsibility; let us look upon it as a national problem, this parliament has the power to appropriate any part of the national revenue for any purpose for the interest of Canada as a whole.
I offer those few observations because, when the Prime Minister was on this side of the house during the last parliament, he was always prepared to support any resolution of this character-for instance with respect to national highways-to state his reasons for so doing and to try to waive all the embarrassment which might exist in regard to the
British North America Act. I was surprised_
and I say this in all sincerity-to hear the Minister of National Health to-day suggest that this resolution should be withdrawn. I am pleased to second the resolution of my hon. friend and I think it should receive from the house the careful consideration which its importance justifies.
Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat); I would like in a very few words to support the general principle of this resolution, although I believe its main purpose should be achieved in an entirely different way.
The object of the resolution will be endorsed by hon. members of the house and the people of Canada. It is to extend to every individual the very best that medical science has produced. I am glad to know that the minister has given a good deal of

Federal State Medicine
sympathetic consideration to the resolution. As he says, the medical men of Canada have not been asleep in bringing forward what they have learned, and that has been done in an educational way. I shall not repeat the various things that have been done in that respect because they are already on Hansard. May I mention, however, that the press of the country has done much to warn people of danger signs and to give publicity to late discoveries with respect to medical care and treatment. The various medical associations of Canada have also done much in an educational way to bring to the attention of the people those urgent problems affecting health and medical care which are of general public interest. Not only have the medical associations given free service-seldom if ever have they refused to give medical service where it was required but they have gone into the educational field as well in a sincere effort to fight the ill-health which is prevalent in this country as in all others.
Instead of having one large new organization to bring about the desired result, I believe it should be obtained by gradual extension of present services. We should start with the institutions and methods which we now have and which have stood the test of time, and gradually extend them until our objective has been achieved. In the various provinces we have workmen's compensation boards looking after injuries to workmen. They could be extended to look after the health of workmen. We have some municipalities paying for the full time services of doctors. That might be extended to other municipalities. We have, as has been mentioned, various contracts, such as the railway contracts, which provide for medical attention to the employees in both accident and sickness. Whi 1 e believing that this resolution is one well worthy of the attention of the house, I suggest to the mover this way of bringing about the desired end, not by the creating of one large new organization, but rather by gradually extending the services that are already in operation.


Mr. I. D. COTNAM (North Renfrew):: I
listened with a great deal of attention to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) who moved the resolution. He deserves the gratitude of hon. members on both sides of the house for bringing this very important matter before parliament. Possibly what appealed to me most in his observations was that they were purely of an academic character; he did not advance proposals which might take definite form in the minds of hon. members. We in the medical profession are
intensely interested in problems of public health. Those whose profession oalls them constantly to the bedside of the sick and the suffering realize to the full what ill health means to the great mass of the people.
For the purposes of this resolution I would divide the people into those who are poor, the indigent class; the middle classes, and those who are more well-to-do, the wealthy classes of our citizens. It seems to me that under our present system the poorer class of people receive just as good medical treatment as the wealthier classes. Through our municipal organizations and public health boards, through our provincial organizations and our hospital services, through the free services that medical men give, the poorer class of citizens are receiving treatment to-day probably as cheaply in Canada as in any other country in the world. No sick man or woman in Canada to-day, no matter how poor, need fail to receive the requisite treatment at the hands of the medical fraternity and in our hospitals if they will only apply for the service. I make this statement without fear of contradiction from any part of the house, that fully forty per cent, possibly fifty per cent, of all the medical treatment supplied in hospitals to-day by our medical men is furnished gratis; the medical men ask no remuneration for it, yet in respect to such service they give to mankind the very best of which they are capable.
The class of people who are suffering most under our system of medicine are the so-called .poorer middle class, those who cannot and do not and will not accept free treatment, who do not wish to be classed as charitable and indigent cases, who are endeavouring and will endeavour, in some way or other, to pay their way in the world. They are the people, it seems to me, to whom some measure of state medicine, or assistance a little different from what we have at the present time, should be given under some system such as is now proposed. For my part I should like to see this subject studied very carefully in order that this class of people may secure, at not too great cost to themselves, adequate medical treatment in times of physical suffering and illness and distress. On that account I think that the federal authorities will have to assume some share in the responsibility for dealing with this whole question.
Unfortunately sickness and disease never stop at geographical boundaries, municipal, county, provincial, or even national. They affect our whole people, and if at the present time we have not jurisdiction under the British North America Act to deal with this
Federal State Medicine

question, it seems to me that some way should be found, possibly by an amendment to that act, whereby parliament would be enabled to act. It would seem that in our fight against sickness and disease our attack has been more or less of a desultory character, that the efforts of the provincial and federal authorities have not been as closely coordinated as they should have been.
I would remind the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Beaubien), who spoke a moment ago, that when on the 17th of March, 1930 I introduced a resolution in this house asking for federal control over the supply and distribution of radium in the treatment of cancer, the federal Minister of Health in the government of that day crawled out from under the resolution by taking a similar attitude and saying that it was a provincial, and not a federal matter. It does seem to me' that some system or method could be worked out whereby these great problems could be met iby the whole Canadian people, and whereby the federal Department of Health would be enabled to cooperate with the provincial health authorities and other organizations in the fight against sickness and disease.
Mr. G. D. STANLEY (East Calgary) As this seems to be a field day for the medical men, Mr. Speaker, I shall offer a few comments on the resolution which has been introduced by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden).
There can be no question that the distribution of the cost of sickness is a big problem, and one which affects a large proportion of the population. In listening to the address of the mover of the resolution, one could not help but feel that the argument he made in support of the view that the whole nation should stand behind what is so important a consideration to our whole popu-Iation should receive the assent of hon. members who in this house represent the people of the country generally.
It is not a question, as I understand it, of objection to the scientific progress which medicine has been making, or to the nature of the treatment being given to those who are ministered to by the medical profession. The big problem behind it all is the cost of sickness and its distribution. When we consider that in this country it is estimated that there are continuously 250,000 people in bed from sickness, and that including that 250,000 there are 400,000 disqualified from attending to their business, we can see that sickness is a big problem, and that its cost is a very serious consideration.

The medical director of the Rosenwald foundation made a thorough investigation of the cost of sickness in the United States. To summarize his report, he estimated that about 25 per cent of the total cost of sickness is accounted for by medical fees, 30 per cent by hospital charges, 25 per cent by drugs, equipment and so forth; and then, coming to the cost of preventive measures used in the United States-and I presume about the same percentage would apply in this country-he estimates the proportion of the cost for preventive measures at one-thirteenth of the total. Taking that figure as correct for Canada, it would mean that the various preventive measures taken by the federal, provincial and municipal governments account for one-thirteenth of the total cost. Then it has also been estimated that at least one-eighth of our population are receiving, without charge, medical attendance at the hands of the medical profession. Financially speaking we have a big problem on our hands when we begin to take medical care or our population over and above the one-thirteenth which is being provided for at the present time by preventive measures.
In considering the practice of medicine generally I think we might divide the subject into two headings: first, preventive and second, curative. Under the heading of preventive medicine we may take all the measures which are undertaken by federal, provincial and municipal authorities. Let us for a few moments consider their development. Going back a few years it will be recalled that there was a time when very few measures were taken by the state in any of its various divisions. These services, however, have been growing from time to time until at present a large list of undertakings is carried on by the municipalities or the provincial or federal governments. When we summarize the quarantine measures, the preventive measures, the clinics, the medical education and the various efforts which have been enumerated by the mover of this resolution, we have the total efforts which are included in this one-thirteenth of the cost. Under the preventive heading we see that the state deals with groups. Under the curative heading exactly the opposite is the case; here the medical practitioner deals with the individual. As I understand it, state medicine can and should be continued and every effort should be made to give all the assistance within the power of the state to measures for the prevention and alleviation of disease.
I am fully convinced that if the state makes the best use of its preventive measures, ex-

Federal State Medicine
tends the services which are being rendered at the present time, continues to develop along the lines upon which it has been developing and takes care of the demands which are increasing from day to day upon provincial, municipal and federal governments, a great service will be rendered to the people. How quickly we shall be able to pass beyond that point, and to the stage where curative measures will be extended to the individual by a physician controlled and directed by the state, is of course another problem altogether. A great service will be rendered if state legislation is passed which in its preventive measures will enlarge and widen the scope of the state, and which will extend to the people those very costly_ services which it is impossible for the individual to purchase for himself or for the individual practitioner to secure. Within the time of hon. members in this house I should think the municipal, provincial and federal governments would find themselves fully occupied in undertaking a great work of that kind. The state can extend its services, as soon as the people will provide by means of taxation the funds necessary for the expensive services required in an extension of state medicine; just so soon may state medicine develop.


Mr. ARTHUR DENIS (St. Denis) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, the resolution under
consideration reads as follows:	"That, in the
opinion of this house, a measure of federal state medicine would be in the best interests of the Canadian people." I must congratulate the mover of this resolution because it places before the house a question of the utmost importance: the medical care of the health of the Canadian people. May I just state that this resolution, like many others which have been discussed in the house, does not conform with the provisions of the British North America Act. I think that all questions referring to health come under the jurisdiction of the provincial government rather than that of the Dominion government. However, considering the precedents established in this house-and we had evidence of this in the course of the emergency session, in September last, when certain amounts were appropriated not only to assist the provinces but also to carry on road work in order to build a national highway-I think that the mover was quite justified in submitting this question to the house so as to remind hon. members and the country at large that if there be, in Canada, or everywhere else, a service which is deserving of attention, it is that of a medical service as a help toward the conservation of our national health. Notwithstanding
the fact, sir, that this resolution does not conform with our constitution and consequently should not be considered by the Dominion parliament, I am still of the opinion that the government should assist the provinces in establishing-as the Quebec Prime Minister did-health units in order to provide the people of each province with the necessary means to safeguard their health;
I think the Dominion government, in concert with the provincial authorities, should aid in establishing health units throughout every county in Canada.
I entirely agree with the views of the hon members on your right, sir, who stated that the Dominion government should contribute at least one third of the cost in defraying the expenses of these health units.
The tendency shown by all classes of society to claim assistance from the state when it is a question of preserving health, pensioning people who have no need of it-such as judges who receive salaries sufficient to provide for the future-as well as other people belonging to various classes of society who could economize so as not to be obliged to fall back on the state, in order to provide for the needs of their families when they die or become old, is very deplorable.
I make this slight digression in order to remind the members of the house as well as the country at large, that it is time to cease asking for assistance from the state for various purposes which cannot be constitutionally dealt with by the federal government. The Dominion parliament should cease once for all to encroach on the rights of the provinces.
We must first teach the people to live in a healthy state, and should they be without the necessary means to obtain medical care when sickness visits them, it is the duty of the state, but especially of the province, to assist these unfortunate people by giving them the necessary medical care in order that they may later render to society all the services expected from them.


Thomas Reid: Although the resolution deals with a measure of federal state medicine, I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the discussion has somewhat widened its scope. I believe the resolution should receive the earnest consideration of all members. I hesitate to disagree with the doctors, but I cannot allow to pass unchallenged the statement made by an hon. member on the other side-a doctor, I believe-to the effect that the poor of this country are looked after with respect to their health. In my own municipality in British Columbia- a municipality
100S
Federal State Medicine

that I suppose is fairly similar to other municipalities in the province in regard to the character of its population-the medical examiner visits the schools once a year and examines all the children. Any who are found to need medical attention are given notices to take home. I believe I am safe in saying that at least seventy per cent of the children are found to need dental or nasal treatment, but not five per cent of the notices are heeded by the parents, simply because they have not the means to engage the services of a doctor or dentist.
This resolution to me is the cry of the common people, and I feel it should receive the favourable attention of the house. Personally, I am heartily in accord with its purpose, and I am pleased that it has been introduced.


Mr. J. K. BLAIR (North Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I am in hearty accord with the purpose of the resolution and with the views expressed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). I do not think our children in the country school districts are as fortunately situated as those in our cities with respect to medical treatment. I am the medical examiner in a couple of country school districts. I make my examination twice a year.
I advise certain treatment, but I regret to say that all too frequently the parents do not follow this advice, simply because they have not the means to engage a doctor. I think a measure of federal state medicine would be of great advantage to Canada. I do not suggest that such a measure should provide for payment of doctors' fees, but certainly unless the rural doctor looked after about a quarter of his patients free of charge, their health would be neglected. This condition of affairs should not be allowed to continue indefinitely. We provide for the education of our children, and the parent who fails to send his children to school renders himself liable to certain penalties. I regret to say that I have seen more children neglected medically than educationally. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) has a resolution on the order paper with respect to compulsory health insurance; I think the two resolutions might very well be combined and referred to a special committee for consideration and report.


Mr. J. H. STITT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker,
coming as I do from a Manitoba constituency,
I,	too, wish to take exception to the remark of the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam) that in this country no sick person is denied medical attention if he asks for it. In certain portions of my constituency the people are so remotely situated that there is 
no possibility or opportunity of their asking for medical attention, let alone receiving it. In the newer sections especially there is a very great need for the extension of medical service. At the beginning of my campaign I learned that in certain parts of the riding all the children were born without the attention of a doctor or a midwife. As a consequence infant and maternal mortality is simply appalling. I may perhaps be able more clearly to bring home the situation to the house if I refer to an incident which happened up in the Fisher Branch section of my riding. About three years ago a settler was stricken with pneumonia. The lone Red Cross nurse joumed over twenty-five miles to the sick man and transported him to the nearest railway station, where she had him placed on a flat car and brought him to the nearest hospital, about fifty miles away. This was done in a temperature of thirty-five below zero, and the poor man died before he reached the hospital.
Federally assisted medical service is urgently needed in my constituency, and I desire to thank the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) for introducing the resolution. If the federal government could in some way assist any scheme to improve the health of our people, it would be a decided advance socially, and they would earn the gratitude of all those who to-day are unable financially to secure proper medical attention. It seems to me that this resolution might well be accepted by the house and referred to a special committee for consideration and report. Possibly if we could not adopt a federal scheme of state medicine we might evolve some way whereby the Red Cross services in the outlying districts might be extended and assisted so that those people in Canada who need medical aid and are without it at the present time might obtain some assistance.


Mr.  G. G. OGOTE@Macleod: I wish to say just two or three words in regard to this resolution. It seems to me that the health of the people is the primary concern of government. Our people are our greatest national asset, and there is absolutely no doubt that there are thousands of families in Canada to-day going without adequate medical and hospital attention because they know they cannot afford it, and they will not see a docor so long as they can possibly attend to their work. This is certainly something to be greatly regretted and something that could be avoided by proper action on the part of the governments of the country. I want to say simply that this resolution as submitted, ask-

Federal State Medicine
mg for a measure of state medicine, would be in the very best interests of the Canadian people and therefore has my heartiest approval


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the attention of the house and of hon. gentlemen who have spoken in this debate has been directed to the resolution. The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, a measure of federal state medicine would he in the best interests of the Canadian people.
How many hon. members have considered the implications of that resolution? How many have considered its effect upon the existing provincial organizations, medical and otherwise? How many realize that it means the entire disbandment of the medical associations of the country of private practitioners, and the substitution therefor of the state as employer of all the medical men of Canada? How many have considered that? Yet that is what it means.
I hardly think it worth while referring to a statement made by an hon. member from one of the constituencies of Manitoba as to what I said last year with respect to health units. I have strongly supported assistance being given the provinces in their fight for health, and hon. members will observe in the estimates for this year that there is one grant not * reduced-the grant for the Health department for venereal disease work, which work has been carried on by the federal and provincial authorities. To ask suddenly, after a few minutes debate in the afternoon, to change the whole theory upon which thus far in this country the medical profession has conducted its business is rather a large order. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden), with moderation, stated his case. No one disputes for a single moment that the nation's health is the nation's wealth. I indicated last- year, as I have always said, that one of the great methods by which we may add to the nation's wealth is to curtail the sickness of its people. There are grave differences of opinion throughout Canada a3 to whether or not the medical service of this country should be nationalized. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) pointed out that whatever is done in this country must be the result of a gradual understanding by the people of what is involved; and if this motion were to pass in the form in which it now is, it is a direction to the government of Canada to proceed to nationalize the medical services of the country. That is what it means. The hon. gentleman has certainly given no reason to warrant that action being taken. It means that the Dominion of 22110-64
Canada sets itself up as the employer of all the medical men in the country, in -control of all medical services. That is what the resolution means in the terms in which it reads. Are hon. gentlemen prepared to say yea to that? Do any of them desire to say yea?


Thomas Reid: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the hon. gentleman
is one who knows nothing of it.


Thomas Reid: Thank you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that in no censorious sense because the implications are such that no man, unless he has spent years studying it, can understand what it involves. In England medicine is not nationalized. Some people think it is, but what happens is this. With respect to certain undertakings, certain portions of the population and the state make contributions and the attendance of the panel doctor, is secured. Individuals are entitled to this by reason of the payments made. The medical men retained are paid out of the moneys contributed by employees, employers and the state. Sometimes in Canada, workmen pay one dollar a month, sometimes two dollars, and sometimes fifty cents. Most doctors in Canada have been company doctors and are familiar with what is involved in that work. Have hon. members contemplated what the effect would be of setting up the Dominion as a company and the medical men of the country as company doctors? Have they thought of that? That is what is involved, and I hope the hon. member will realize the advisability at least of not pressing this resolution to a vote. For certainly I do not think that the most ardent believer in state medicine in Canada is ready to vote yea to such a proposal to-day. What will happen and is happening will be a clear and, I trust, proper understanding of the whole situation as a result of the education which is being carried on now by the schools, the universities, and other organizations in various parts of the country which are trying to impress upon men and women the value of preventive medicine.
The most powerful address I have had the pleasure of reading on the subject was made by the late Lord Moulton-I had the pleasure also of discussing it with him-at the university of Leeds; and I heard the late president of the university of Pennsylvania say that it was by all odds the most forceful statement of the case that had appeared in our language. It dealt with preventive medicine and the

Federal State Medicine

effect of education. The theory of medicine has changed in the lifetime of even men of my age. The understanding of the germ theory, the operation and understanding of what is involved in preventive medicine in all its branches, has so changed the outlook of men upon medicine as to make those responsible for government realize their responsibility, first of all, to induce people to think in terms of their own wellbeing, by pointing out to them that disease is the result of a cause, an effect produced by a cause. Medical men, I know, will indicate to this house, as they have so frequently done, that causes are sometimes difficult to ascertain; and to the extent to which causes can be definitely ascertained, the diagnosis of the physician might as well be given antecedently to as after the disease. If it is antecedent, it is preventive, and disease does not occur. Yet, notwithstanding all our scientific knowledge and all the attainments of the years, the fact still remains that we have not been able to discover the germ of the common cold and isolate it and provide a remedy against it. The great Carnegie institute, the Rockefeller foundation, the Rosenwald foundation and others, have spent vast sums of money and paid for years the salaries of the most patient, thoughtful men in laboratories, and have not yet isolated that germ and provided against the recurrence of common colds. We have made a great advance with relation to diphtheria. You will be told today that to have any person die of diphtheria is practically an indictment of the judgment of the person under whose care the patient was. And they will tell you that smallpox, as the hon. member for St. Boniface has said, should be dealt with by vaccination. Yet day after day, in more countries than this, there is being carried on propaganda against vaccination-and very powerful is that propaganda too. Pneumonia has yielded to some extent to the treatment which medical men have discovered in the laboratories, and they have a serum that may bring about very beneficial results. Yet medical men in this house will tell you that it is not always possible to discover the cause of a disease from indications which should be infallible, so that there is uncertainty in diagnosis with the resultant death rates which we have in connection with most diseases. Instead of this great effort, instead' of medical men vying with one another in an ambitious desire to excel-and I apprehend that this would include surgery as well-the suggestion is that we should substitute the state as the em-TMr. Bennett.]
ployer of all. This would be an experiment in socialism which has been carried out in no country in the world but one, and time has not permitted the results in that country being made known to mankind. Can we in this parliament this afternoon declare that Canada is to engage in such an experiment in socialism? I fancy the hon. member for St. Boniface did not intend us to say yea to-day to this resolution. He has very frankly discharged what he conceived to be a public duty; he has made known to this house his own views-that the increased cost of medical attendance and hospital service has made it impossible for the average man to secure the services which he should be able to command. A friend of mine pointed out the other day that his nursing services alone were costing something like $100 a week. The average man cannot pay that much. However, an effort is being made to reduce these charges. One of the greatest hospitals on the American continent has been making an earnest effort to reduce its charges for the very reason mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for St. Boniface. Other hospitals have followed the practice of charging all that the traffic will bear, of making the rich who are afflicted pay for the services rendered to the poor who are afflicted also. As perhaps this house knows, most of the great hospitals of Great Britain are maintained by voluntary efforts. A constant appeal is being made for the benefactions of those who can afford to give, and the scale upon which these institutions are carried on indicates how thoroughly the problem is appreciated by those who give their money for that purpose.
Without discussing the matter at length; without going into the legal difficulties in connection with the provincial and federal positions and endeavouring to define the relation of one to the other, I would suggest that we do not undertake to make a declaration of such far-reaching consequences without realizing fully what we are doing in the light of all the knowledge that can be secured. Knowledge upon this subject can be obtained, but it involves the studying of experiments and the reading of the histories of those countries that have adopted similar proposals on a small scale in some sections of their communities.
I hope the house will accept the view suggested by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw). It must be realized that we have two jurisdictions dealing with the same problem, the health of the people of

Federal State Medicine
the country. The municipality maintains its clinics in the schools for the purpose of ensuring that the teeth and tonsils of the youth of the country are so tested as to prevent the toxic conditions so often produced and having disastrous effects in later life. Then we have the civic hospitals maintained by the taxes paid by the people; we have the provincial boards of health, and the courts have held that the provinces may maintain such boards of health and upon the province alone rests that jurisdiction. We have a federal parliament with power to appropriate to any purpose it may desire the moneys which it collects, and it has given liberal grants in aid of medical education in the large sense of the term, and to assist in the discharge of very onerous responsibilities, to that extent lessening the obligations of the municipalities and provinces.
These matters are not free from legal difficulty. Just a few hours ago the courts in Saskatchewan held that a statute which had been passed in connection with a one hundred per cent pool was ultra vires of the provincial legislature. By passing a statute based on this resolution we would be inviting litigation, because the people are not ready, nor are the medical men themselves ready, to adopt this proposition with all the attendant difficulties which would follow. The hon. member for St. Boniface, a medical man, stated his case with great precision this afternoon, so that we have one medical man who is convinced that the only remedy for the difficulty to which he refers is state medicine, so-called; but that is a far cry from concluding that it is the only remedy to effectuate the end he has in view, the accomplishment of that end by legislation. To pass this resolution this afternoon would be tantamount to saying to the government of the day: You must enact such legislation.
We are not at the present moment prepared to discuss completely the subject matter of the resolution and as the question will become more and more a subject for discussion I trust that every hon. member will in the meantime endeavour to make himself familiar with the points involved in the enactment of any legislation based upon a motion such as that which the hon. member has introduced.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I think it is
unfortunate that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) should have sought to dispose of an important question like this by reading 22110-641
into the resolution what an ordinary man could not possibly find in it. The resolution reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, a measure of federal state medicine would be in the best interests of the Canadian people.
I cannot understand how the Prime Minister can possibly say that that means or would involve the entire disbandment of the medical associations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What else does it mean?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It does not seem
to me that this resolution involves anything of that kind. It suggests only that something in the way of state medicine would be desirable, and I submit that there exists in a number of countries a measure of state medicine. It does not mean that we would be sweeping away all the private practitioners, nor does it go so far as to say that we should have a full-fledged state medical scheme; it is a tentative suggestion put forward that something should be started.
The impression has been given that the mover of this resolution (Mr. Howden) is more or less alone among medical men in suggesting what he does in, his resolution. I know in my own city of Winnipeg medical men have been considering the whole field and have come to the conclusion that something of this kind is eminently desirable. It is not my intention to attempt to make a speech on the subject, but I should like to point out that those who have preceded me are in my judgment absolutely correct when they say that under modem conditions the ordinary worker as well as the lower paid salaried man is not in a position to pay the costs involved to-day in hospital treatment or in the obtaining of proper medical services. That is one of the reasons why medical men throughout the country are beginning to feel that something must be done. Superintendents of hospitals are coming to that conclusion and, speaking as one who has been in very close contact with the poorer people, I would say that to-day sickness is becoming more and more dreaded simply because the people cannot afford to look after their loved ones when sickness appears.
I know that many medical men give a great deal of free service, and I think all honour should be given to them in that regard, but there are many people who are not able even to go to the doctor in such a case. You can-
Federal Stale Medicine

not expect a medical man to give his best service indefinitely without having some financial arrangement made with regard to matters of this kind.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is not
fair to expect that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, and there are
to-day in the western provinces large areas where great numbers of people live in districts in which they cannot obtain medical services. There are volunteer hospitals, some of them operated under missionary societies, which are threatened with being forced to close because of the difficulty of maintaining them during this period of depression. This would mean that large numbers of people would be entirely without medical services.
The question is, however, not merely one of helping the individual man or woman back to health; there is the larger question of general prevention of disease to which the Prime Minister has referred. A few days ago there came into my hands through the mail a pamphlet from the Canadian Social Hygiene Council-other members may have received it-containing statements as to the seriousness of the present situation. Let me give just a few of these statements:
Canadian statistics dealing with sickness indicate that over half of all disabling illness could be prevented!
Again:
Of the population of Canada, 30 per cent are adult males; 30 per cent are adult females.
It is thus estimated that 54,000 adult males are continuously ill. This amount of illness would suggest that in the adult male population alone there are lost each year 16,200,000 working days.
Calculations show that, for every twenty males gainfully employed, there are approximately six females similiarly employed. This would suggest that, in addition, the female population loses 4,800,000 working days per year.
Total loss per year-21,000.000 working days, at least 50 per cent preventable.
Superfluous loss per year-10,500,000 working days.
And again:
It is important to bear in mind that the resultant cost must he reckoned not only in terms of loss of pay to employees, but also in terms of diminished output, disorganization of industry and other economic results.
Let us look at the monetary cost of sickness:
Sickness and premature death cost us $1,311,000,000 annually.
I am giving the figures as they are recorded in this pamphlet. The statement is an astonishing one which we cannot pass over without

giving it serious consideration. In regard to
the monetary cost of illness the pamphlet has this further to say:
Capital Investment, etc., as a result of sickness,
Total number of
General public hospital beds in
Canada	 36,523
Asylum beds	 26,862
The sanitarium beds	 5,655
Department Pensions and National
Health	  3,614
Others-maternity, orthopedic, private, isolation,	etc	 4,391
Total hospital beds	 77,045
Capital investments:
Hospitals, asylums, sanataria. . . $ 241,202,000 Total expenditures-yearly:
Hospitals, asylums, sanataria. ..	51,406,000
These expenditures are merely institutional costs, they do not include private medical, nursing, or similar costs. And in addition, there are, of course, innumerable philanthropic institutions, homes, refuges, etc.
In view of the enormous cost of sickness to-day and in view of the statements that we have been receiving from medical men with regard to the difficulty of maintaining institutions and ministering to the sick, this seems to be a question which ought to receive the attention of this house. I know we can be told, as we have again been told by the Prime Minister that there are constitutional difficulties in connection with this matter-as indeed there are with so many; but in such a serious matter, surely some way can be found of overcoming these constitutional difficulties.
I should like to endorse the suggestion made by a previous speaker that even this year we might have appointed a special committee that would make a study of the question. I know we cannot immediately institute a scheme of the kind proposed, but we can do our part in the house by making inquiries as to what has been done elsewhere, as to the needs here and as to what it is possible for us to do under the circumstances. I could wish that the Prime Minister, instead of throwing cold water on the proposal, had suggested that at least something of this kind be done in order that we might take our share in carrying on the educational' work which everyone realizes is necessary. I want to compliment the medical men in the house for passing outside of the narrower confines of their profession and urging that there should be more adequate provision for public health.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	I would like to say just a few
words, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the resolution moved by the hon. member for St.

Federal State Medicine
Boniface (Mr. Howden). The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, a measure of federal state medicine would be in the best interests of the Canadian people.
I would take it from the reading of that resolution that the hon. member for St. Boniface would not want to go the whole way with regard to national control of medicine; that the wise method would be to begin in a small way and develop the measure he urges to national proportions. I think there are just three positions which we can take in a matter of this kind. First, we could take our municipal health units or organizations which are linked up with our provincial health organizations and find out the possibilities of those health organizations, municipally and provincially, and develop them to their full capacity. I do not believe they are being fully developed at the present time. I believe provincially and municipally more health work could be done all over Canada and could thus be very much improved and expanded. As a matter of fact I was wondering, if such work had been done more thoroughly whether the present demand for national action would have become so pronounced.
The second position we could take would be to have the closest cooperation between the municipal health organizations, the health organizations of each province and the federal department of health-an ideal stand to take.
Where we would not leave the question of health entirely to municipal and provincial organizations and where we would not have the closest cooperation between the provincial and federal departments of health, there is only one other position to take and that is full state control in connection with sickness and health. That question came up before the committee on industrial and international relations in 1929 as a complementary question to the subject of insurance against unemployment. The resolution referred to insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity. In connection with the question of insurance against sickness, this matter was gone into rather thoroughly and the report of that year dealt with it. Evidence was given before the committee by Mr. A. Grant Fleming, M.D., professor of public health and preventive medicine in McGill University, Montreal and also by J. G. Fitzgerald, professor of hygiene and preventive medicine at the university of Toronto. If I remember correctly, the viewpoint taken by both these eminent medical men was that the federal
Department of Public Health should give leadership of the finest possible type to the provinces in respect to the building up of an adequate preventive health organization extending right across Canada, and that it would be well to have an interprovincial conference called at an early date at which this question of building *up a new organization could be discussed with a view to caring for the health of the nation in a way that perhaps could not otherwise be done.


Murray MacLaren: If I may interrupt the hon. gentleman for a moment, I assume he is awtare th'at there is held at Ottawa twice a year a meeting of the health representatives of all the provinces under the auspices of and in conjunction with the Department of National Health. It is held for advisory purposes, just as my hon. friend suggests.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I am glad to hear from the hon. Minister of National Health the statement which he has just made. I was aware that such a conference was held from time to time, but I was not aware that it took place semi-annually. That only makes the point that I was trying to bring before the house more pressing than ever, and that is, that when this conference next meets, this question should be fully discussed with a view to bringing about the greatest possible measure of cooperation between the federal Department of Public Health and the health departments of the different provinces.


Murray MacLaren: From the inquiries I
have made I understand that this question of organized medical service has been discussed by the Dominion Council of Health on several
occasions.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am glad to hear that
that is so, but a great deal of information is still lacking. May I refer hon. members to part of the evidence which was given before the select standing committee on industrial and international relations by Doctor J. G. Fitzgerald, professor of hygiene and preventive medicine at the university of Toronto. Dealing with Canada, he says:
What is the situation in Canada, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee; what is the volume of sickness and invalidity in this country, either attended or unattended? We have no exact or definite knowledge or information with which to answer this question.
That was the thought I had in mind in suggesting the calling of a conference annually or oftener, in order to secure the fullest possible data with regard to sickness and invalidity in Canada. Doctor Fitzgerald continues :
Federal State Medicine

It is true that certain estimates have been made, based upon the experience in England and Wales, and in the United States, as to the volume of sickness and invalidity, and its cost. But I should like to reiterate that we have no precise and definite information, because no provision is made for the collection of morbidity figures. The volume and kind of sickness occurring in the community at all times in large part goes unreporteS.
Secondly, what provision have we in this country for dealing with sickness and invalidity? it is impossible to completely answer that. Some of our resources are, of course, well known at the present time, but on the side of curative medicine there are between 575 and 600 hospitals, general and special, in Canada, with between 55,000 and 65,000 beds. There are believed to be about 8,000 physicians actively engaged in the general practice of medicine, and there are perhaps one thousand in addition in other fields, such as research, teaching, public health, hospital administration and in charge of the direction of medical or lay organizations.	_
The third question is what is the cost of medical care, including hospitalization, dental treatment, nursing, and so on? Here again we can only resort to speculation, to arrive at any idea at all as to its amount.
Then again, the fourth question; what provision for insurance against sickness and invalidity is now available in Canada on a voluntary basis? It is practically impossible to give any satisfactory answer to that question.
So that my own view, in a word, Mr. Chairman, is that a study of the Canadian situation in respect of the need for sickness and invalidity insurance is highly desirable. In my judgment one aspect of this study could be undertaken perhaps by the Canadian Medical Association, and one of the voluntary health promoting agencies, the Canadian Social Hygiene Council, if such a request came from the Department of Pensions and National Health of this country.
Perhaps from this point on, Mr. Chairman, any service I can render to the committee can best be done by endeavouring to answer any questions the committee may wish to ask.
That was the evidence given by Doctor Fitzgerald just two years ago before the committee on industrial and international relations. Hon. gentlemen will note that one of the points which he emphasized was the lack of information with regard to sickness all over Canada and what we are losing by sickness throughout the country.
Another point which he emphasized was the importance of preventive medicine. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and Doctor Fitzgerald made it plain to the committee on that occasion that time after time when an individual knew there was something wrong with him, perhaps something seriously wrong, he did not go to a physician because he had not the money to do so, with the result that eventually his health became undermined, perhaps with fatal results. The nation, in the event of his decease, would lose the economic value of that individual, and

remember that this sort of economic loss is continually taking place all across the Dominion.
In closing I would impress upon the Minister of National Health, upon the Prime Minister, and upon the government, the importance of having the fullest possible investigations made as often as possible into the health of the whole population of Canada in order that we. may keep the health of our people up to normal, and thereby be enabled successfully to compete with the other nations of the world. I take it that the object of the mover of the resolution was that his proposal should be interpreted as expressing the desirability of our ever being on the alert and exercising all possible vigilance with a view to building up throughout Canada a fine type of healthy citizen ready to meet all emergencies so far as health is concerned. If that be our aim I believe the discussion we have had this afternoon from hon. members on both sides of the house will enable us to strengthen our position in any plan of national health betterment, and that the time taken in considering the resolution will by no means have been in vain.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Power Howden: Mr. Speaker, I am very greatly pleased with the discussion evoked by the resolution before the house. Most hon. members who have spoken to the motion have been in entire agreement. A number of other hon. members have partly agreed, having stated certain reservations. I think the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren) agreed with the spirit of the resolution but saw some obstacles in the way of Canada adopting such a system. During the course of the discussion some points were brought up which I might briefly touch upon.
The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) stated that the medical men in this country have a monopoly. I do not believe there is a class of men in this country or in fact in the world, who have been less selfish, who have been more at the disposal of their country, or who have devoted themselves more to the interests and welfare of the people than the men of the medical profession. I am told that Socrates once charged his disciples that whatever they learned of benefit to the human race they should not keep in secret but should spread among their fellows

Federal State Medicine
and give to the world at large. I believe, sir, that that is the spirit which has actuated the endeavour of the medical world since the time of Socrates.
The hon. member for Battle River said also that the care of the health of the average individual was limited to the length of his purse. In some instances unfortunately that is true, but for the most part it is not true It has been my experience that any medical man who learned that his patient, though in need of certain treatment, was financially unable to procure it, usually saw to it that the treatment was given. In many cases the medical men themselves have had to pay for such treatments. The various health boards throughout the country at the present time supply the costly sera, vaccines and other medical aids which have been mentioned in the course of the debate. I think in most parts of Canada a medical man finding a case of diphtheria or any case requiring more or less costly treatment could forthwith obtain assistance from the local board of health. If in the nature of things it is possible, the board of health will collect payment for such treatment, but if not the charge will be made on the municipality, city or province affected.
The resolution I submitted to the. house today was prompted by two main considerations. First, a great deal of the sickness by which the Canadian people are overtaken is preventable by periodic examination. The life insurance companies of this country and throughout the world have adopted a system by which from time to time the assured submit themselves for preventive examinations. If such a scheme pays an insurance company, surely it would pay this Dominion of Canada at large.
The other consideration involved in the resolution is that medical service is sometimes outside the purse of the so-called middle class. As was stated this afternoon, there is no doubt that for those individuals who wish always to pay for their own medical care there is sometimes great hardship. If a system such as I have mooted to-day could be put into force there need be no trouble of that kind. Undoubtedly people sometimes accept a degree of neglect because they feel that they have not the funds to pay for proper attention. In Europe state medicine is national. Germany adopted it in the early part of the century. France adopted it at a later time, and before a person may enter Switzerland he has to pay a poll tax. In that poll tax there is included a premium on the health of the person whereby his health is cared for if he should take ill while in that country. I consider that national health assurance is necessary in order to obtain
uniform periodic examinations and to ensure proper treatment where such is needed.
Reference has been made to the excellent work done by compensation boards. Splendid results have been achieved also in connection with industrial insurance. In nearly all these instances, however, only those who are engaged in the industries concerned are insured, and in regard to compensation boards, only accidents and injuries are covered.
The right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) took exception to the resolution on the score that it would immediately involve Canada in adopting the means of bringing this idea into force. I believe that the resolution does, not necessarily imply any obligation upon the government immediately to adopt such a scheme, but merely suggests to the government that it would be well for it to take the matter into serious consideration

I repeat, serious consideration-with the idea eventually of evolving a scheme which would give the people of this country the medical attention to which they are entitled.
The right hon. the Prime Minister has suggested that such a measure would be detrimental to the interests of the medical men throughout the land. I believe I can say for the majority of our medical men that they would welcome some such scheme as this. Of their own volition they have taken it up in the various provinces and have declared themselves in favour of it. The only doctors that would be opposed to it, and have to some extent actually shown themselves to be, are perhaps the leading men in the profession, the men who do very little and collect big fees. I do not see why the adoption of such a scheme would change the whole system of medicine. Nor do I see why it would necessarily do away with the supervision and control of the provincial boards. There is room for both provincial and federal boards. The provincial boards would still be enabled to exercise supervision provincially, while the federal authority would look after the whole Dominion.
The right hon. Prime Minister made reference to a common cold. This is a very frequent trouble, particularly during the winter season. He has decried the fact that the medical profession has never isolated the germ that produces a cold.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not decried it at all; I have only pointed out the fact.


John Power Howden: I stand corrected. I might point out that all the characteristics of a common cold can be produced by the use of several medicines, and by the application of
Federal State Medicine

any substance that will irritate the mucous membrane of the nasal passages. There was even some doubt thrown upon the value of vaccination as a preventive of smallpox.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not by me. Surely the hon. gentleman is going too far. I have not interrupted him, but he should certainly give authority for some of his statements. I said there was propaganda carried on in this country against vaccination, and if he reads one of the morning papers published in this city he will find it there every now and then.


John Power Howden: Very well; but I rather gathered from the way in which the right hon. gentleman discussed the matter that he himself harboured some doubt as to the value of vaccination.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What nonsense!


John Power Howden: I do not think there is any doubt in the world as to the value of vaccination. There are a thousand proofs of its efficacy. One of the best proofs I know of is to be found in the countries of Germany and Austria.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, one is at least entitled to fairness in debate. Here is the exact language I used:
And they will tell you that smallpox, as the hon. member for St. Boniface has said, should be dealt with by vaccination. Yet day after day, in more countries than this, there is being carried on propaganda against vaccination-and very powerful is that propaganda too.
Then I dealt with pneumonia. That is all I said about vaccination.


John Power Howden: There is no necessity to remind .the house that the value of vaccination in the preventive treatment of smallpox is not longer open to question. Throughout the country intelligent people know the value of vaccination. The efficacy of vaccination in preventing smallpox is strikingly illustrated in Germany and Austria; in Germany vaccination is compulsory, in Austria it is optional; smallpox is virtually unknown in Germany, while in the neighbouring country the disea.se is rife.
I believe that the federal authorities should supervise the health of the people. It is not a difficult undertaking. When the income tax was put in force the government very readily secured a record of those who came within the provisions of the legislation. The Prime Minister also took exception to the old age pension scheme because it was optional on the part of the provinces to cooperate with

the federal authorities in making the scheme operative; in other words, he objected that it was not Dominion-wide. But let us consider, sir, that unless a scheme of health insurance were adopted federally it would be useless. To have health insurance adopted by one province and not by its neighbour would be like having two adjoining fields, one dirty and the other clean. If you have one province in which the health of the people is under proper supervision, and no such supervision obtains in the neighbouring province, the health measures in force in the former will go for nothing.
I do not wish for a moment to suggest that this is a political issue. Still I cannot forget that during the years I sat to your right, Mr. Speaker, I gathered from his speeches that the then leader of the opposition, the present right hon. Prime Minister, was in favour of practically all the reforms and social pro-poisals that came before the house. Now apparently he finds his hands to some extent tied.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Again I must protest, Mr. Speaker. Why should the hon. gentleman persist in making statements that are incorrect? There is no necessity for him to do so, it does not advance his case. What I said last year with respect to health units I not only repeated this afternoon, but I also referred to the provision in the current estimates of the Department of National Health. These cheap references to what did not take place, made in the expectation that they will not be denied, should cease. The hon. gentleman has some responsibility to this house, a responsibility which he should fairly discharge by not misstating what other members may have said.


John Power Howden: I was speaking from
memory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know-an odd thing, is it not?
Mr. HOW7DEN:	My memory is not so
defective as all that. If I remember rightly the Prime Minister did support all social and reform proposals that came before the house when he acted as leader of the official opposition. Now, I believe that hon. members can well afford to give this proposal their serious consideration. I am not blind to the suggestion that the resolution should be withdrawn. Well, if it is withdrawn it is thrown in the waste paper basket and consigned to oblivion. If the resolution is voted on it can die no worse than an honourable death, and, sir, I prefer that it should meet that fate.

Burial of Ex-Service Men


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No pairs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I understand that pairs do not count.


Murray MacLaren: We were informed that there were no pairs in this division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


Murray MacLaren: Had I any idea that there would be pairs I should not have voted, as I have a permanent pair with the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset).


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Pairs are not recognized in this division.
(Owing to the absence of an official list and the impossibility of recording several statements of pairs simultaneously announced, the stated pairs are not recorded.)


BURIAL OF EX-SERVICE MEN PROPOSAL TO DISCONTINUE ALLEGED PRACTICE OP CALLING FOR TENDERS
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the practice of calling for tenders for burial of deceased ex-service men shall be discontinued forthwith as the practice is an indignity to ex-service men and a discredit to the honour of our country.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I think it will require but very few words to secure the sanction of the house or of any government to this resolution. It is quite true that the expenditure of public money is carried on by the tender system, but in this case I think it must be admitted that a number of abuses have arisen and it is time that the practice should be discontinued in relation to the burial of deceased ex-service men.
Let me note what the abuses are. When the tender is asked for from the undertakers there is always a reservation made that the undertaker may be a friend of the deceased, but difficulties have arisen in many cases in this regard. I know that in hospitals notices have been posted that the body must be handed over to the official undertaker. In addition to this, another very serious abuse has arisen which is an indignity to the returned man and to his relative*.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Mr. Speaker, I desire very much to hear what the hon. member has to say, but I cannot do so because of the conversation being carried on in the chamber.
Burial of Ex-Service Men


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would ask the hon.
members kindly to desist from conversing within the chamber. There is nothing to prevent their leaving the chamber should they desire to do so.


Arthur Edward Ross: Another serious abuse has
arisen through the carrying on in certain communities of a price war by the undertakers. In my own town, and in several others, the result is that tenders have been accepted for as low as $40. I ask hon. members how a funeral can be properly conducted at a cost of only $40, when an undertaker is required to furnish:
Casket to be black cloth covered, silk lined, and to have engraved plate and six handles: or casket to be surface oak, to have engraved plate and six handles then to be metallic. (Also crucifix if required.)
Outside case to be furnished.
Body to be embalmed.
Shroud to be furnished by contractor. (When
necessary.)
Hearse to be furnished by contractor.
No undertaker can conduct a decent funeral for $40 and provide all these items.
The system is very unfair. In one place the price is $100, in another it is $40, in other places it may be $50 or $60, which is most unfair to the relatives of the returned men, who should be all treated alike. Whatever price is awarded to one man's relatives should be awarded to those of another man. I grant that in exceptional cases in the large centres funerals may be more expensive, but outside of one or two of the larger places the price should be practically the same.
These are a few of the abuses which have arisen. All our talk about the glory due to the returned men and the justice we were going to mete out to them is highly inconsistent with the revolting practice of trying to get the lowest price for the decent burial of a returned ex-service man whose death has probably been hastened by his overseas service. I cannot see how this house or any government can but agree and declare that from this day on the revolting practice of asking for tenders for the burial of ex-service men shall be discontinued.


Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that I can agree entirely with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) but I want to say that I agree with everything he has said from the commencement to the end of his remarks.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that I am entirely opposed to this resolution. Under-

takers should not be more favoured than rural mail carriers. The latter are governed by contracts and stipulations similar to those which govern undertakers in the burial of veterans pensioned by the State. I think, that should this resolution be adopted, it would open the door to abuses. For this reason I am strongly opposed to it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In what
provinces is this practice being indulged in? So far as I know it is not followed in British Columbia.


Arthur Edward Ross: It does not prevail universally, but tenders are being called for in different parts of the country and that practice I wish stopped.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Has the hon. member any figures as to the cost of giving a decent burial to a soldier?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member who
has moved the resolution will no doubt close the debate, and at that time he can give further information.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: When I read this resolution as it appeared on the order paper, I felt heartily in sympathy with it. It seemed to me that the practice of calling for tenders had nothing to justify it, but I must confess that I should like to have heard the hon. member offer the alternative so that we might see what the alternative involved. This is only a suggestion on my part, as I have not given very much consideration to the question, but this privilege-for one might call it a privilege-that is given to the undertaker might very well become a matter of patronage. That is one of the questions we would have to consider, so that before we are called upon to vote on the matter I should like the hon. member for Kingston City to state what the alternative is. Some of us are not very familiar with the matter, and we would like information with regard to it.


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: I
desire to express my most hearty appreciation of the way in which the hon. member has brought this resolution before the house. The matter is one of great importance. So far as I am concerned I am heartily in accord with the sentiments expressed by the mover of the resolution and I hope the house will see its way clear to approve it.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I hope this is one resolution that will carry unanimously without a vote. It is a

Burial of Ex-Service Men
surprise to me to know that this practice is being followed, and I heartily endorse every word uttered by the mover of the resolution.
I did not hear whether the hon. member made an alternative suggestion or not, but I know under the workmen's compensation acts generally throughout Canada the dependents of a workman who is killed are allowed from $100 to $150 to bury the deceased man. So I suggest that if this resolution is carried, the government leave it to the relatives of the deceased to undertake the funeral expenses, the government to foot the bill up to a certain amount.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	I was pleased that the hon.
member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross) brought before the house this proposed resolution, the essence of which is to have the practice of calling for tenders for burial of deceased exservice men discontinued forthwith. It is an indignity to ex-service men and a discredit to the honour of our country.
In speaking to the resolution I wish to say only a word or two. I am satisfied that in supporting the hon. member in his resolution I am taking a stand that is in harmony with the sentiments of ex-service men not only in my riding, not only in Saskatchewan and indeed in western Canada, but throughout the Dominion as a whole. I would like to see the resolution carried unanimously without a vote, and also the Department of Pensions and National Health take steps to ensure that this practice be discontinued forthwith.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One would think from some of the observations that have been made, notably by an ex-minister, that since the advent to power of the present administration, something new had been done with respect to the burial of deceased ex-service men.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have listened enough to know exactly what was meant. Do not for a single moment, Mr. Speaker, think I am not entirely wise to these proceedings, and most of the members of the house are in the same position. What I said was that the practice that prevails to-day is a practice that has prevailed for some eight years. The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren) will state the facts, indicating what has been done and what is being done. Everything that was in existence when he succeeded to the administration of the department has been continued. But there was not any such thing as tenders in the sense in which that term is used; there never
has been in this country under any government and I do not suppose there ever will be. All that was done was to ask undertakers for their fees for performing a burial service and then to select from those whose names were given the one who would perform the last sad offices for the dead. That is the story. Whether or not that constitutes tenders is for the house to say. In my judgment it does not. I do not think it can be said in any sense to be tenders and I would not have called it such.
The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) put a question that has been agitating my mind as I listened here this evening. How are you going to do this? Select one person, and say he is to perform the service and let him fix his own price, or how otherwise is it to be done? This of course is a sort of thing that one desires as much as possible to refrain from discussing; it is not the kind of question that should be discussed in parliament. The administration that has been carried on, is as I have said, continued and what concerns me at the moment is whether or not we can properly describe this practice as calling for tenders. I cannot think that is the proper description. If it is a matter of tenders, it should be discontinued. If, on the other hand, it is merely inviting people to indicate what is to be charged in different communties for the carrying out of the last sad offices for the dead, the situation is entirely different.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I regret very much, Mr. Speaker,
that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), inadvertently I am sure, injected into this debate a note that was somewhat unfortunate. I think the suggestion that was made by one of the members to my right is the only one which will meet the wishes of the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross), namely that there should be a uniform amount agreed upon consistent with the decency and dignity of these sad occasions. The amount could be determined by the ministry of pensions, and there should be no question at all of rival prices between rival undertakers. I appreciate to the fullest degree the motives that animated the hon. member for Kingston City in bringing forward this resolution. What he has in mind is that there should be no dickering or bargaining in regard to this last solemn ceremony in which Canada pays her homage to deceased returned men who served her overseas. I am sure the house is unanimous in its wishes in that respect, and I regret the note that has been injected into
Burial of Ex-Service Men

the debate by the Prime Minister. I think the solution is this: The Department of Pensions and those who are directing the magnificently conducted Last Post fund in Canada should agree-I will not say upon a uniform price, but upon the amount necessary to the carrying out this last ceremony in a dignified and befitting manner. Once this amount is agreed upon and due dignity is paid to the dead and due deference to the living, there should be no bargaining, no dickering and no rivalry.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Leader of the Opposition):	The Prime
Minister (Mr. Bennett) has referred to the practice that was adopted by the previous administration. If I am not mistaken the hon. member who has introduced the resolution (Mr. Ross) brought up the same subject at the last session of the last parliament, and speaking from where my right hon. friend is speaking to-night, I said at that time that the government was making a contribution to the Last Post fund, and that if that contribution was not sufficient for those administering the Last Post fund to discharge their duty^ in all particulars in a manner that was befitting, the government would undertake^ to see that the necessary amount was provided. That assurance I think met with the general acceptance of all parties in the house, and I assume it is what my hon. friend would wish to have at the present time. It certainly should permit of what is most befitting.


Murray MacLaren: 
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who cares in a matter of that kind?


Murray MacLaren: The friends care.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Murray MacLaren: The cost also will depend upon local conditions. I should like to say this very clearly and very distinctly, that action is not taken on the grounds of economy They are not restricted to any special sum I have mentioned three countries where a maximum amount is stipulated, but there is no restriction in Canada as to the amount that may be charged. I ask the house to bear that in mind. In reference to the amount, from the information that I have received from the department, it appears that the lowest amount is $71 odd, and the largest amount $195; so there is a considerable disparity.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton) :: Is the minister quoting from departmental records when he gives that figure of $71?


Murray MacLaren: I am quoting from the memorandum prepared for me in the department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am afraid that figure is incorrect.


Murray MacLaren: The maximum is $195. There is a very considerable difference in the cost of graves in the different cemeteries throughout the country. Some are expensive, and some are without cost. There is also a considerable variation in the requirements regarding tombstones, which in certain cemeteries must conform with the regulation's governing that particular cemetery.
I would like to emphasize this, that in none of the countries that I have mentioned, and so far as I know in no country of the world, are returned men buried in a more seemly and befitting manner than they are in Canada.
I say that in defence of my department, which has been conducting these burials for eight or ten years; the records show that there have been extraordinarily few criticisms and objections. They show, on the contrary, satisfaction and expressions of gratitude to the department for the very reverent way in which our men have been buried. It does not make the slightest difference to the department how the matter is done provided it is done with decorum and respect. That is the policy of the department and of the government.

Burial of Ex-Service Men
I object to this word "tenders" in this connection. It does not feature in the matter so far as I know. There is no haggling, to use the word of my hon. friend, and I wish the house distinctly to understand that there is no limit regarding the expense. It is not necessary to accept the lowest offer. Our one requisite is a proper, worthy funeral, and there is no reason why we should not have it. The government does not stint us in the amount. All we ask is a reasonable figure, or what they voluntarily say a funeral must cost. The department is prepared to adopt whatever course in the opinion of this house and the country will show the greatest deference and respect to our deceased ex-service men and their relatives. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, and I say it definitely, with confidence and with readiness, that I do not wish this house to have the impression that the department has been niggardly or has fallen short in its performance of this important function. It has not. I have looked over the records and have seen and gone through medical reports from Sydney to Vancouver, and with the few exceptions and criticisms which are always received and are of a very unimportant character, I have heard no objection. The impression of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) was that he had never heard of any objections.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I accept
the word of the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) as being accurate.


Murray MacLaren: No one has come to me and made any objection, written or verbal, -not one. This resolution gave the first intimation to me that there was any dissatisfaction. I have asked in the department whether any objections have been offered, I am told that there have been none. I say for my friend who immediately preceded me in the department, and his predecessor, that there is no record of complaint. I dare say the department would be prepared to make a change if a better method could be shown. I point out this fact to the house because I do not for one moment want the friends of our departed men to consider that any indignity has been shown them, or that any discredit has been cast upon this country regarding the last rite* of our returned men. Knowing the care with which officials in the department deal with with these matters I am not conscious of such an indignity. I make that statement emphatically and frankly. It may be that an explanation of the proceedings does not give a fair impression of what actually happens. I would like to add that
the department and all the officials connected with it are most willing that any hon. member of the house should come at any time and discuss matters of this nature, make any suggestions thought desirable and at the same time perhaps hear some of the difficulties or objections familiar to those actively engaged in the department.
Finally I would say that the departmental officials who have this matter in hand are better able to carry out funeral arrangements than individual persons or friends who would have to make their own arrangements. Hon. members are aware that friends of the men may prefer one undertaker to another. There is no rule within the department requiring that any certain person shall attend to the funeral. Great freedom is allowed in the choice of undertaker, in fact the friends of the deceased are allowed to have such undertaker as they wish.
There is one thing to which we may point with pride and satisfaction. All our returned men whose deaths have occurred in our institutions as a result of overseas disabilities are provided with either granite or marble headstones. May I say that if hon. members were to search diligently I do not think they would find a record of any country at the present time which carries out this particular duty as fully and with as much regard to dignity and fitness as Canada does.


Frederick George Sanderson: May I ask the minister a question? I cannot learn from the remarks he has made whether or not he is in favour of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Kingston.


Robert James Manion: Everybody is.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is not a proper question to ask the hon. minister until he has finished his speech.


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As to whether or not the minister is in favour of the resolution is a matter entirely for him to decide. He may vote upon it one way or the other.


Frederick George Sanderson: With all due deference to the ruling of Your Honour, surely the Minister of Pensions and National Health should give at least some lead to the house in questions of this character.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I rise to a point of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The minister has given a fair exposition of his views on the subject. The hon. member surely can interpret it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of indulgence-
Burial of Ex-Service Men


James Arthurs: Mr. Speaker, I submit both these gentlemen are out of order, having already spoken in the debate.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre undertook to direct a question to the minister while he was speaking.


Murray MacLaren: I think the hon. member intended to put a question.
Mr. 'MACKENZIE (Vancouver): .1 realize f am out of order, but I should like to present my question. I agree with the remarks of the minister in regard to the officials of the department; I think they are very sincere and that they are doing everything in their power in this regard. I do however have a very great belief in the-


An hon. MEMBER:: Question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member put the question he intended to ask of the minister?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister said that it was .the practice of the department to ask for figures as to cost of burial. Would it be too much to ask him to explain how this is done?


Murray MacLaren: I cannot give any further information on that point. I can only say that they asked undertakers for figures, and that is all I know about it. I never have seen anything in the nature of tenders.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is what I wanted to clear up.


Charles Gavan Power: I confess I would have risen to speak to this subject with much less reluctance had it not been for the observations of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I think under the circumstances his observations were entirely uncalled for. However I believe there is some misapprehension in the minds of hon. members, as there is in mine, with respect to this matter. As I understand it, and I speak subject to correction, pensioners who die or persons awarded a pension on account of the death of pensioners are entitled to the sum of $75 or $100. I think the correct sum is $100.


Murray MacLaren: I do not understand the hon. member. He says that they are entitled to so and so.


Charles Gavan Power: They receive at the discretion of the Board of Pension Commissioners $100 when the pensioner dies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another thing.


Charles Gavan Power: In order that the burial and funeral expenses of the pensioner may be paid.


Murray MacLaren: No.


Charles Gavan Power: In enumerating the different classes of people who receive burial moneys from the government I endeavour to make a distinction, because as I have already pointed out there is misapprehension and misconception in the minds of some hon. members. Pensioners, or the relatives of pensioners who died, are entitled under the Pension Act of Canada to $100 for burial and funeral expenses of such pensioner. That is one thing. Then there is an institution known as the Last Post fund, which looks after the burial expenses of soldiers who die without leaving any relatives. The Canadian government makes a substantial contribution amounting to about $30,000 or $35,000 annually to this Last Post fund. Thirdly, there are the persons who I assume are to be covered by this resolution-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who die in the institutions.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, namely those who die in institutions under the control of the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment. Objection is taken by the hon. member for Kingston to the practice of what he refers to as "calling for tenders"-bargaining with respect to the funeral expenses of these men. I am not prepared to make the fine distinction which the right hon. Prime Minister has made as to whether this practice can be termed calling for tenders. I see no distinction between calling for prices in this matter and calling for tenders in any other matter. I think we have come generally to aPPly the term "calling for tenders" to the practice of asking from different persons prices for the performance of any service. Whether it be called by that or by any other term, unless it can be clearly shown to me that some other method to be substituted will be any better, I am prepared to support the stand of the minister that we had better continue to carry on the present method. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) seems to attach great importance to what he characterized as a peculiar circumstance that an undertaker was prepared to do this work for the sum of $40. Well, provided the undertaker does the work well, I do not care if he gets only $40. I am not here taking my stand on behalf of the undertakers of Canada. As a class I do not know of any body that has exploited the public more than have the undertakers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the public.

Burial oj Ex-Service Men


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, the public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The executors.


Charles Gavan Power: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: For my information, will
the hon. gentleman kindly answer this question? Do not the administrators of the Last Post fund look after the burial of soldiers who die in the institutions of the city of Montreal, for instance?


Charles Gavan Power: I am subject to correction,
but I do not think so. There is a distinction to be made between "institutions." I was speaking of departmental institutions, that is institutions under the control of the Department of Pensions and National Health. My hon. friend has in mind, I think, institutions such as the Royal Victoria hospital.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And the general hospital.


Charles Gavan Power: Under those circumstances
the department is not in control of the man at the time he dies, and therefore the Last Post fund looks after the funeral.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is very satisfactory, is it not?


Charles Gavan Power: So far as I know it is very satisfactory. But the question under discussion refers to men dying in hospitals under the control of the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Speaker, I agree with those hon. members who say that there is a misunderstanding. The Last Post fund has no reference whatever to the subject-matter of this resolution. That fund provides for the burial of ex-service men who die in poverty, and whose bodies but for the provision of that fund would be turned over to schools of anatomy and other institutions. The amount so provided is just nominal. My resolution refers to ex-service men who have a war disability and who die while under treatment in institutions under the control of the Department of Pensions and National Health. As to whether this is calling for tenders or not, I can only refer hon. members to the regular departmental form which is sent out to various undertakers throughout the country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the number of it?


Arthur Edward Ross: P. R. 5210. When I introduced this resolution I had no idea of partisanship. It has been the practice of previous governments, both Union and Liberal, to send out this form, and it has continued under this government. What does the form say, Mr. Speaker? It says:
Tender for furnishing funerals of ex-soldiers and sailors for period of one year.
Burial of Ex-Service Men

I objected that this form set up a system of competition, with the result that there were established in various places such low rates that the proper requirements could not possibly be met. And the result, whether hon. members have heard of it or not, is that many complaints have been referred to me to the effect that whereas in one place the relatives of ex-service men were being granted the sum of $40 to assist in paying for the funeral of a deceased, in another place they were receiving $80. That is unfair. I appeal to the wisdom and the judgment of every hon. member in this house: I do not consider that fair treatment. We are setting up competition. The undertaker who received this order submitted a tender of $65. That was not accepted. I know for a fact that the amount accepted by the department was $40, and that was due to what I call local competition.
I do not want to introduce patronage into this question, but I do say that if you elmin-ate tendering and competition you can establish a fair price, and any undertaker who is a friend of the relatives of the deceased should have the privilege of burying that deceased. Under this system I know that that has been objected to in certain places. This, I think, is due to a misinterpretation of the regulations. I believe, however, that in all cases the undertaker who is a friend of the relatives of the deceased should be the person to bury that deceased ex-service man. And that should be the practice, without partisanship and without patronage. There should be a fixed price. Someone has asked, "Why not make the renumeration $100?" I care not what it is, so long as you provide a suitable casket and a proper funeral. But I submit, notwithstanding anything that has been said, that no undertaker can provide a decent funeral for a deceased soldier for forty dollars.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. member
wish to have the question put?


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) moved:
Whereas the city of Riviere-du-Loup is the most important centre in the eastern part of the province of Quebec;

Whereas the harbour of said city is free from ice in winter, and navigation is possible at all times of the year;
Whereas the said city is a divisional point of the National railways and the terminus of the Temiscouata railway, which links the said city to the province of New Brunswick, and to that part of the National railways known in the past as the Transcontinental;
Whereas the National railways are still in possession of the branch line of Rivifere-du-Loup station to the Riviere-du-Loup wharf;
Whereas the transport by water of coal from Nova Scotia to Riviere-du-Loup -would be much more economical and would permit of its distribution at a lower cost in eastern Quebec, in the northern part of New Brunswick and the state of Maine;
He said:	No doubt the Prime Minister
(Mr. Bennett) will regard it as leaving a pleasant taste in the mouth if I quote part of a speech which he delivered in Inverness on July 8, 1930. The right hon. gentleman said:
At the Winnipeg convention of 1927, the Conservative party had pledged itself to a fuel policy and the policy of "Canadian goods through Canadian ports." Both these pledges, he declared, would be carried out by his party.
Later on the Gazette reports him as having said on February 13:
It does seem ridiculous that a country with a population of only ten million is unable to meet all its fuel demands from the very large sources of its own coal mines, from Vancouver island to Cape Breton, said Premier R. B. Bennett, replying this morning to the large deputation from Nova Scotia, headed by Premier Gordon Harrington of that province, which made a number of requests of the federal government for the improvement of the steel and coal industries of the maritime provinces.
And later on:
Premier Bennett stressed the point, in relation to the request of Nova Scotia for further federal aid in reduced freight rates on coal, that the Dominion treasury was now burdened with obligations arising out of monetary recompense to the railways for hauling freight at an unremunerative rate from and to the mari-times. Dr. Manion stated that the treasury would be obliged to pay the sum of $9,200,000 to (he railways on account of the Maritime Freight Rates Act for the last year, as the sum due the railways for carrying goods at the 20 per cent reduction provided in that legislation. The Prime Minister hinted that the treasury and particularly the taxpayers were in no mood to consider any further obligation in that direction.
To be fair to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) may I add that there was a letter from himself to his colleague the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren) which was published in the press on February 18, to the effect that the rate reduction alone was $3,263,000, the

Riviere du Loup Harbour
balance being a deficit of another character. The matter is of such great importance that my hon. friend the member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) said not long ago, on the 20th of this month:
I wish to say frankly and fearlessly to my right hon. leader and his associates in the cabinet that if, when that budget is brought down, there is nothing in it for steel and coal,
I certainly, on account of the promises I have given to the miners in Nova Scotia, will not be able to vote for the budget unless it makes some provision for the steel and coal industries in my province.
There is a despatch of the Canadian Press, dated October 3, 1930, to the effect that the government has decided to extend until March 31, 1932, transportation at the special rate of $3 a ton in winter and S2.10 in summer time of the coal of Nova Scotia to the markets of Quebec and Ontario.
The matter has been discussed before the Board of Commissioners, who had it under consideration in October. The rates on coal are pretty high. For example, from Sydney, Nova Scotia, to Edmundston, New Brunswick, it is $2.50 per net ton; from Pictou, Nova Scotia, to Edmundston, it is $3.10; from Sydney, Nova Scotia, to Riviere du Loup, Quebec, it is $2.90; from Pictou to Riviere du Loup, $3.60. With respect to the last, under orders in council P.C. 539 and P.C. 2256, the rate will be $3 per ton until April 16, 1931. This appears in a letter I have received from the secretary of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and I understand that the reduction has been extended for some time. Now, the rate for the transportation of coal by water is entirely different. The water haul per ton on coal from Cape Breton and Nova Scotia costs at the present time around 90 cents per ton.
The county council of Temiscouata are in entire accord with the contents of this resolution. Some twenty years ago plans and surveys were made by the Department of Public Works of Canada for the development of the harbour of Riviere du Loup. This city i3 located about 120 miles east of Quebec on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river and would provide an ideal distributing point for coal. At the present time it is a divisional point of the Atlantic and central regions of the Canadian National Railways, as well as the terminus of the railway which runs from Riviere du Loup to Edmundston-and Connor, New Brunswick, on the Maine boundary.
On January 12, 1926, Mr. J. H. Mailloux, alderman of Riviere du Loup, wrote me that the Canadian National Railways had posted
a notice to the effect that the railway was prepared to sell the site of -the branch line from Riviere du Loup station to Riviere du Loup point. He asked me to take this matter up with the railway company in an endeavour to induce them to retain possession of this line. With the permission of the house, I will have this letter put on Hansard. It is as follows:
Mr. J. Frs. Pouliot, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Pouliot,-
I have just seen in the post office here a notice posted by the Canadian National Railways, advertising for sale by tender, either by parcel or on bloc, the old Intercolonial branch line right of way which extends to La Pointe de la Riviere-du-Loup. A blue print attached to said notice indicates the route used in the past, with the names of owners whose lands were encroached upon by this branch line. This blue print bears the following description which may help you to locate it. at the Department of Railways and Canals: Wuth Plan 8098 Cor. File 3-2-347.
I believe that it is in the interest of our city and district, in general, that the government should not sell this land for which it will receive very little, because no one except the interested farmers will give it a thought. I therefore contend that the government should keep this land such as it is, the cost of the upkeep should be very little, if anything, and later should our town expand and the port be utilized, we shall need a branch line to carry wood, coal, etc., which will pass through our port. Should the government dispose of this narrow strip of land, everything will have to be done over again later in order to reestablish these means of communication with the wharf.
I therefore trust, Mr. Pouliot, that you will take the necessary steps to insure that this proposed sale will remain in abeyance for the present, and as previously stated, should this light of way be needed later, the cost will be lessened since only the sleepers and rail, so to speak, will have to be laid.
Thanking you in anticipation, I remain, Yours truly,
J. H. Maillaux,
Manager.
St. Lawrence Furniture Co.
I received another letter under the same date from the mayor of Riviere du Loup to the same effect. He enclosed a copy of the notice, and with the permission of the house I will put the letter and the notice on Hansard. They are as follows:
Dear Sir,
[Stage Direction]
Enclosed please find copies of notices posted in public buildings here as well as in the city of Quebec. The government or the railway commission intend to sell the strip of land on the main road leading to the wharf of La Pointe de la R. du L. over which, in the past, ran the branch line of La Pointe.
My attention was called to this matter by a number of citizens. We are of the opinion
[Stage Direction]
Riviere du Loup Harbour
[Stage Direction]
that it would be preferable that this property remained in the hands of the government, first because such sale would bring in very little; then, if later on, one never knows, the question of developing a sea port here came up, the government would be in possession of the necessary land to construct the railway; while, if the land is sold, that might be brought up as an objection and perhaps as a real obstacle in realizing this scheme,
I believe that your views on this question agree with ours, it would therefore be in the interests of the town and county that you take up this matter, and, if possible, with the assistance of the proper authorities, prevent the sale of this land. I think that this letter represents the views of the entire population here, should it be of any help, you may make free use of it to foster the interests of our locality.
Believe me.
Yours truly,
C. M. E. Dube,
Mayor.
The notice follows:
Sealed tenders will be received up to noon, Atlantic time, of Thursday, January 28, 1926, at the office of the chief engineer, Atlantic region, Canadian National Railways, Moncton, N.B.. for the purchase en bloc of that portion of the old Intercolonial railway right of way known as the Riviere du Loup Wharf branch.
*Sealed tenders will also be received on the same date at the said office of the chief engineer, Atlantic region, Canadian National Railways, Moncton, N.B., separately for each parcel of land included in the above right of way.
Plans of the said right of way can be seen at the office of the Canadian National Railways ticket agent at Riviere du Loup, at the post office of the town of Fraserville, and at the ticket office of the Canadian National Railways in Quebec City.
The highest or any tender not necessarily accepted.
Terms: Cash. Conveyance in the form of letters patent will issue from His Majesty the King.
Sgd. W. U. Appleton,
General Manager.
Atlantic Region, C.N.R. Then on January 23,1926, I received a letter from the president of the chamber of commerce of the city of Riviere du Loup. This letter was to the same effect; it asked that I discuss this matter with the Canadian National Railways in an endeavour to induce them to retain possession of that branch line. A resolution was enclosed and with the permission of the house I will put this letter and resolution on Hansard. The letter follows:
Dear Sir,-[DOT]
Please find attached copy of a resolution of the Chamber of Commerce of Riviere-du-Loup opposing the sale of land located at the Pointe and requesting the railway management to retain possession of that property.
The resolution was transmitted to Sir Henry Thornton, and this Chamber in opposing this sale, relies on your support in regard to which 
you must already have received protests from the council.
Yours truly,
The Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of Riviere-du-Loup,
Horace Cimon.
This is the resolution:
Whereas the sea port of Riviere-du-Loup has never received from the government the development which its importance and economic situation should command;
Whereas this Chamber of Commerce has, on numerous occasions, earnestly requested the government to carry out this development;
Whereas the reports of engineers in the Public Works Department have justified the requests of this chamber;
Whereas to give effect to said reports, plans were prepared to give the port of Riviere-du-Loup the necessary development, and that in 1914 tenders were on the eve of being asked to carry out the proposed development;
Whereas the changed economic conditions brought on by the European war postponed indefinitely the carrying out of said work, but that this chamber intends to renew its requests to have the work executed the moment that conditions warrant its doing so again;
Whereas one of the essential factors of this development was the then existing branch line of the state railways and known as the Pointe branch line;
Whereas the management of the state railways, although having had the rails of said branch line removed a few years ago, nevertheless remained owner of the land of said branch line;
W'hereas the said management now call for tenders for the purchase of said strip of land;
Whereas the sale of said land would hurt the future development of the port of Riviere-du-Loup, and would therefore be detrimental to the interests of the town of Riviere-du-Loup and the economic development of that part of the country;
That this Chamber of Commerce therefore pray the management of the state railways not to offer the land of said branch line of la Pointe for sale by tender but to retain possession of it, and this in the interest not only of the town of Riviere-du-Loup and surrounding districts but also in the interest of Canada as a whole.
I wrote to Right Hon. George P. Graham,
the then Minister of Railways and under date of January 18, 1926, I received the following: Dear Mr. Pouliot:
I have your letter of a few days ago, stating you have been advised by an alderman of Riviere du Loup, that notices have been placed in the post office there, offering for sale, by tender, the land of the branch line of the Canadian National Railways from Riviere du Loup wharf to Riviere du Loup station.
Personally, I am not familiar with this proposition and the only thing I can do is to refer your letter to the president of the board of management, Canadian National Railways, Montreal, who is conversant with the facts, and in a very much better position to deal with same than I. I shall no doubt bear from him before very long.
Yours sincerely,
Geo. P. Graham.

Riviere du Loup Harbour
Under date of March 3, 1926, I received the following from Sir Henry Thornton:
Dear Mr. Pouliot:
With further reference to your letter of January 22nd.
I beg to advise you that the right of way for the branch line to which you have referred will not be sold, but will remain in the hands of the company. I trust this position will meet with your approval.
Yours sincerely,
H. W. Thornton.
Some time afterwards the Quebec & St. Lawrence Navigation Company began to operate a service between Riviere du Loup and northern points, and I think it was in 1927 that I met Sir Henry Thornton and asked him if that branch line was to be rebuilt. I received the following letter in reply under date of April 23, 1927:
Dear Mr. Pouliot,-
After you left my office this morning, the idea occurred to me that it would be preferable that I should have more details as to the traffic which would accrue to Riviere-du-Loup by the inauguration of this new service boat, and more particularly as regards the localities it will call at.
In a general way, I know what it is proposed to do, however I should like detailed information which will give me an idea of the probable traffic.
Is there any one who could furnish me with such information or would you prefer that our agent at Riviere-du-Loup should call on you to obtain it.
Sincerely yours,
H. W. Thornton.
The Quebec & St. Lawrence Navigation Company was carrying more passengers than freight and was operating only a summer service. Due to this fact, and to the fact also that the passengers went to the wharf in motor cars or buses, this matter did not receive the attention of Sir Henry Thornton for some time.
So much is being said about the importance of granting cheap rates for coal shipments that I desire to lay some facts before the house in regard to the convenience of Riviere du Loup as an all-year harbour. The tide is very strong at the point and the ice is carried away by the strong current and does not accumulate at any time to offer an impediment to navigation. The steamship Mahone, which received a subsidy from the Department of Trade and Commerce some years ago, has successfully proved the fact that navigation is possible all the year round at Riviere du Loup. That port is bound to become a very popular winter port because other steamships like the steamship Gaspesia have stopped also at Riviere du Loup during the winter time.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	There are stations at
Riviere du Loup, are there not?
Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but the boats do not stop there; I am speaking now of navigation, or to say in French: Je vois que mon ami veut me monter un bateau. My hon. friend is much deeper than is the water at the station, but, as my hon. friend says, we are O.K. I have tried to explain this matter so clearly that I will gain the support of the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne).
The following statement will show the tonnage which could be handled at this port:
50.000	tons Nova Scotia coal for Fraser pulp mill, Edmundston, N.B.
15.000	tons Nova Scotia coal for Fraser paper mill, Madawaska, Me. via Edmundston, N.B.
10.000	tons Nova Scotia coal for Temiscouata Railway Company at Riviere du Loup, Quebec and Edmundston. N.B.
5,000	tons Nova Scotia coal and coke Riviere du Loup. Quebec, domestic use alone.
75.000	to 120,000 tons for Canadian National Railways at Riviere du Loup, Que.
155,000	tons Nova Scotia coal and 5,000 tons Sulphur from Port Sabine, Texas for Edmundston, N.B.
The house would like to know how much it would cost to take the coal from the wharf at Riviere du Loup to the station. It would not be any more than 25 cents a ton, and a reasonable rate for the Temiscouata railway to charge to carry the coal from Riviere du Loup to Edmundston, New Brunswick, or Madawaska, Maine, would be one dollar a ton. This makes a great difference in comparison with the present freight rates, which I gave a moment ago. The house will note also that there are things one cannot understand in these freight rates. For instance, from Sydney to Edmundston the present freight rate is $2.50 a ton, and from Sydney to Riviere du Loup the rate is $2.90, or 40 cents more. From Pictou, which is nearer than Sydney, the rate to Edmundston is $3.10 and to Riviere du Loup, $3.60. It is most extraordinary that it costs more to bring coal from a nearer point than from a further point. But if we take it for granted that it will cost about 90 cents a ton to bring the coal by water from either Sydney or Pictou to Riviere du Loup and 25 cents more to haul it from the wharf to the station at Riviere du Loup, this will mean $1.15 instead of $2.90 to bring it from Sydney, or a saving of $1.75, and $1.15 instead of $3.60 to bring it from Pictou, or a saving of $2.45. Thus to haul the coal by water from Pictou to Riviere du Loup and then by rail from the wharf to the station at Riviere du Loup will cost less than one-third of the present freight rate. If that rate of $1 a ton be accepted by the railway and the Board of Railway Com-
Riviere du Loup Harbour

missioners, there will be a saving of 60 cents from Sydney to Edmundston and of $1.20 from Pictou to Edmundston. That would be a great saving on the price of the coal, because the cost of transportation is included in the price of the material. It would mean a great saving for the companies who distribute the coal, and it would also be an economy for the Canadian National; for the able lawyers of the Canadian National who have appeared before the Board of Railway Commissioners have stated again and again that the Canadian National are losing money all the time in carrying coal. Finally, it would be a great economy for the federal treasury, on account of the fact that if that coal can be hauled at such a rate, the government will have nothing to pay, in virtue of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, to indemnify the company in that respect. Therefore it will be a saving for the people concerned, for the railway, and for the Dominion government, to try out that scheme.
The matter has been discussed several times before the chamber of commerce of Riviere du Loup, and not only is it a matter of importance in connection with the transportation of coal, but I have in my hand a letter from Imperial Oil Limited showing that it is a matter of interest to them also. This letter reads:
March 6, 1931.
Mr. Jean-Franqois Pouliot, C.R., M.P., Riviere-du-Loup, P.Q.
Dear Sir:-
Further re your letter of February 17 in connection with the resolution which you intend submitting to the House of Commons early next session, in reference to the developing of the harbour at Riviere-du-Loup, would say that in the absence of Mr. McKean, we have submitted your request to our general sales department, and are now in receipt of a letter from them, stating that they certainly would be interested in the development of any points by which a freight saving could be made.
It would have to be understood that in order to be of any service to us, it would be necessary for the Canadian National Railways to build and maintain, all year round, a line between their present station and the -wharf.
Trusting that you will be successful in securing the passing of this resolution, and thanking you for calling our attention to same, we are, Yours very truly,
Imperial Oil Limited,
R. G. Plaw, Assistant Manager.
The Fraser Company, Limited, which operates mills in different places in Temiscouata county and also mills at Edumundston, New Brunswick, and Madawaska, Maine, might ship
20,000	to 30,000 tons of paper to Chicago on lake boats at Riviere du Loup via the Temiscouata railway and ex-Madawaska, Maine,

from Edumundston. That paper is at present carried by the Boston, Bangor and Aroostook railway, which, as everyone knows, is a United States railway.
In conclusion, may I stress the fact that something should be done for small centres. I agree with the expenditures that are made in the big cities like Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and so on, but the small centres should not be forgotten, because, if they are, people will migrate from them to the big cities and the unemployment situation will be worse than ever.
I informed the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) that I would amend the resolution that is now before the house. In these times of economy it would be pretty hard to ask the government to decide forthwith to construct those harbour facilities at Riviere du Loup for the unloading of coal; but as the plans were made some years ago I would ask the government kindly to see to it that experts are appointed to make a survey of the whole matter and as soon as possible to report accordingly to the government in order that we may know whether the people will receive any advantage from that scheme, whether it will be of benefit to the community, and whether it will mean a saving for the people of Canada without hurting anyone. Therefore I would ask leave to amend the resolution to read as follows:
Whereas the city of Riviere-du-Loup is the most important centre in the eastern part of the province of Quebec;
Whereas the harbour of said city is free from ice in winter, and navigation is possible at all times of the year;
Whereas the said city is a divisional point of the National railways and the terminus of the Temiscouata railway, which links the said city to the province of New Brunswick, and to that part of the National railways known in the past as the Transcontinental;
Whereas the national railways are still in possession of the branch line of Riviere-du-Loup station to the Riviere-du-Loup wharf;
Whereas the transport by water of coal from Nova Scotia to Riviere-du-Loup would be much more economical and would permit of its distribution at a lower cost in eastern Quebec, in the northern part of New Brunswick and the state of Maine;
Therefore be it resolved-that in the opinion of this house, the government should appoint experts to study the matter from every angle and report to the government as soon as possible.
The words that are changed are those last ones:
The government should appoint experts to study the matter from every angle and report to the government as soon as possible.
If the government accept this resolution, may I ask that the experts appointed be men of repute, perfectly independent of the

Riviere du Loup Harbour
Canadian National Railway and of all other organizations, so that the government will be well posted on the matter.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Has the hon. member the consent of the house to amend his resolution? It must have unanimous consent. Apparently there is no objection.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The hon. member has not told the house what are the actual facilities in the harbour of Riviere du Loup.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall be glad to answer that question.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member has the right to reply in closing the discussion on his resolution, but he cannot answer questions. Should he do so, his remarks would be considered as his reply, and would close the debate.


Alfred Duranleau: I wanted to put a
question to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, before he concluded his remarks.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall be glad to answer if I have permission.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not think the hon. member may speak twice on the question. His time is up, and he has the right only to reply in closing the debate.


Jean-François Pouliot: I submit that I did not speak for forty minutes, Mr. Speaker.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Then I was wrong as to that. Even so the hon. member may not speak twice. After he has taken his seat he can rise only to reply.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall be glad to give my hon. friend the information afterwards.


Alfred Duranleau: I desire to say only a few words on the proposed resolution of my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). First let me say that no government is better disposed than the present one to aid navigation and to facilitate the development of any of our ports. The port of Riviere du Loup, I understand, has had a decent wharf for years, and though the hon. gentleman was a member of this house for a certain number of years he never asked, if I am well informed, for any improvements to that harbour. I do not want to question his sincerity, but it is, to say the least, surprising that nothing was done in that direction when his party was in power, for the hon. member was, and still is, a very influential member of his party. I am sure he sba-es my views on that. It is therefore
surprising that if he asked for something for the harbour at Riviere du Loup when his party was in power, nothing was done, and that to-day, now that we are in power, he is so deeply impressed with the importance of this question. How is it that nothing was done when his party was in power? Surely with his influence and with the help of his friend the premier of Quebec, his great friend, as we know, having a summer residence in the near vicinity, he could have obtained something from his party for the harbour of Riviere du Loup. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal governments which have been in power in this country for almost the last ten years have done absolutely nothing at the request of my hon. friend from Temiscouata, it must have been because they thought the time was not opportune or that there was no emergency as to the development sought by my hon. friend.
This government, as I have already said, is willing to encourage the development of any of our ports. We believe that our maritime trade is closely connected with the development and progress of Canada. But the question of developing the port of Riviere-du-Loup is a rather difficult one. The hon. gentleman himself does not seem to be sure as to the advisability of doing certain works in that harbour. First, he proposed in the resolution which is now on the order paper that work should be immediately begun to facilitate the unloading of coal. Later on my hon. friend comes with an amendment asking that a body of experts be appointed to study every angle of that question. So he does not seem to be very sure about the matter himself.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the question of developing the port of Riviere-du-Loup should be studied, not by a board of experts, but by this government. Surely the former government studied the question, and evidently it came to the conclusion that no improvements should be made to that harbour. But now that the hon. gentleman has brought this question before the house and drawn it to the attention of the government it will be the duty of the government to study the question of developing the harbour of Rivierc-du-Loup. We do not need to appoint a board of experts to study the question. It is our duty to study it. Later on, if we come to the conclusion that the matter is so important that this government is not in a position to solve it, then we will see that a body of experts is appointed. For the time being, I do not see the necessity of such a course, and I hope that my hon. friend, hav-
Riviere du Loup Harbour

ing brought the matter to the attention of the government, will now be satisfied to withdraw his motion.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): First of all let me give the information asked for by the Minister of Marine (MrDuran-leau). There is a wharf at Riviere-du-Loup, running from east to west, between the mouth of the Riviere-du-Loup and the St. Lawrence river. It is quite a long wharf, extending for half to three quarters of a mile. At the head of the wharf there is a depth of from twelve to fourteen feet of water at low tide. This wharf is quite sufficient for passenger navigation, but the depth of water would be absolutely insufficient for the coal tramp steamers which draw more water.
This matter was studied a long time ago by the Department of Public Works, and I have here large development plans which I shall be glad to show to the minister even before he comes to Riviere-du-Loup, in order to give him some idea of the improvements that are to be carried on there.


Alfred Duranleau: Would the hon. member please tell the house how long ago the wharf which is now there was built?


Jean-François Pouliot: It was built a long time ago by Baby Les Quais, before my hon. friend and myself were born. May I tell my hon. friend that when I was elected it was really falling into ruin. I had money spent on it every year in order to put it into good shape, and at one time a contract to repair the wharf was given to a firm of south shore contractors. There was a very dangerous hole in it, and it had to be repaired before the winter season set in. As the contractor was not working I interviewed the then Minister of Public Works and explained to him the whole situation. In turn he notified the contractor to proceed with the work, but his notification was not complied with. I succeeded in having that work done by day labour, and I may say to my hon. friend that it was done very successfully and to the satisfaction of the department. The people who performed the work by day labour did not use the whole amount of the appropriation set aside for the work and they were complimented by the department. That occurred either in 1926 or 1927. Each year quite a substantial item has been voted for the wharf at Riviere du Loup, and the work has been done by day labour to the full satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. The officers of the department were so much satisfied with the work done by the people I had procured that last year when an item of about $22,000 was voted for that wharf it was stipulated that the work was to be done by

day labour by the same men who had given such good service, and not by contract. That is the reason this particular work, involving such a large sum of money, has been done by day labour.
But what happened? As soon as this government took office they chased these men away and replaced them by a foreman who was a thief. I notified the hon. the Minister of Public Works accordingly and he told me to substantiate my charge against the foreman and he would be prosecuted. I congratulated the minister on his readiness to act, but answered him, "I do not want the death of the sinner; I want his conversion." I consider it a matter of responsibility to recommend men who are worthy of recommendation. The point is however that those men were chased away. I said to them,, "You may say you have voted for the Conservative candidate, if you wish, and keep your job; I do not mind." They were too proud to do that however. They preferred to leave their jobs and to be replaced by men who loafed. The whole amount of money was not spent, and I notice there is a revote this year. I have not the complete information, but I know that the foreman has paid-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. I must ask the hon. member to return to a discussion of his resolution.


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely. I am merely giving some information concerning the work being done at Riviere du Loup. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine wanted to know what the Liberal party had done when it was in power, and I have attempted to tell him what was done then and what is being done now. I believe such information would be a matter of public interest. It is my intention merely to give some information to the house as to what is going on. When there is good work to be undertaken nothing is done, and wrhen something is done it is done wrongly. That is why I take this opportunity of offering some humble suggestions to the government in order that they may improve the situation, if improvement is possible.
As a matter of fact Riviere du Loup is a natural harbour open throughout the year, and coal can be unloaded very cheaply. The use of this harbour means a saving in money to the Canadian National Railways, the big corporations and the Dominion treasury. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine was surprised that I had not made my request when the Liberal party was in power. My answer is a very simple one indeed. Wharves and public buildings had been so widely abandoned during the time the Tories were in power that

Riviere du Loup Harbour
it took me all my time to have them put into decent shape before beginning any new work. Like everyone who is newly elected I wanted first to do some spring cleaning by putting into order everything in my constituency. After that I wanted to try for some new improvements, such as the Riviere du Loup station and a new post office at Trois-Pistoles. Nothing is being done in connection with either of them, however.
I am very proud of my county and my constituency, and I want to replace the building -which has been condemned by the board of health, and have some improvements made. I have given this government every possible chance. I do not wish to have them do this or that in a hurry, but it is well that they should think about these matters. I want to give the Minister of Marine plenty of time to think about it so that he may consult experts. If the whole matter was to be discussed from a constitutional point of view I would accept the decision of the minister, who in connection with matters of that kind is an expert. He is a very distinguished lawyer, and I sincerely hope he will be unanimously elected batonnier of the bar of Quebec. It is well known that the hon. minister is a very able lawyer. In this case, however, the expert must necessarily be a civil engineer, and I ask my hon. friend if he will be kind enough to ask an engineer to make an independent and impartial report about the building of a new wharf, about 1,650 feet from south to north, on the St. Lawrence river, and have some dredging done in order that coal tramp steamers may unload their coal. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I should be very glad if my hon. friend the minister would accept my suggestion, but unfortunately I cannot accept his-I cannot withdraw the resolution.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted I would have voted for the resolution.


Murray MacLaren: I was paired with the
hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I was
paired with the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). Had I voted I would have voted for the resolution.


Mr.   MBROIER@Laurier-Outremont) (Translation: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). Had I voted I would have voted for the
resolution.
(Owing to the absence of an official list and the impossibility of recording several statements of pairs simultaneously announced, the list of stated pairs is incomplete.)
INQUIRY FOR RETURNS On the orders of the day:


Peter John Veniot: Will the Minister of Public Works say whether the
Representation Act

papers asked for some time ago will be produced before we reach in supply the items relating to the improvement of harbours and rivers in the province of New Brunswick?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only say that all the returns that have been ordered are prepared and are, I think, in the hands of the Secretary of State. They will be brought down any day.


INTERNATIONAL LOAD LINE CONVENTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish to ask the Minister of
Marine (Mr. Duranleau) two questions. First, is it the intention of the administration to introduce, during the present session of parliament, legislation implementing the findings of the International Load Line Convention held in London in May, 1930? Secondly, as a supplementary question, if this is the intention, will the minister give consideration to the suggestions received from the shipping interests of British Columbia in regard to certain exemptions in the sheltered waters adjacent to the coast of that province?


Alfred Duranleau: We are at present preparing a
bill to put into effect the findings of the International Load Line Convention, and we hope that we shall be able to introduce the bill during the present session.
As to the second question, although I have not studied the veiy lengthy report that has been submitted, involving as it does a good many technical questions, I may say that I see nothing in the report concerning exemptions in the case of sheltered waters. I do not know whether by our legislation we can alter the findings of that convention. However, the matter is under consideration at the present time and if it is possible to exempt sheltered waters we shall probably do so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Thank
you.


ROYAL GRAIN COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Livingstone Brown: I believe
there will be a great demand for copies of the Stamp report, when it is issued, and I trust we shall have an assurance that there will be a considerable number of copies provided for distribution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is aware that the report has not been received,-


John Livingstone Brown: I know that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -but there will be as little delay as possible in presenting it when it is available. I shall bear in mind what the hon. member has said. The house will determine the number of copies to be printed when the report is laid on the table.


RADIO LICENCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the ddy:
Mr. W. H. TAYLOR (Norfolk-Elgin):: I
wish to ask the Minister of Marine a question. Is the information correct that persons permitted to issue radio licences under his department must have a recommendation from the government member or the government candidate?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I must remind hon. members that questions asked on the orders of the day should concern urgent matters only. The hon. member is asking a question which he should put on the order paper.


William Horace Taylor: This is an urgent matter.
I have had several requests from people in my riding-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member should put the question on the order paper; it is not of a character to be asked on the orders of the day. Questions, to warrant being asked at this time, should concern matters of urgency.


REPRESENTATION ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainv River) moved the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Representation Act.
He said: We have gone through the order paper so quickly to-day, Mr. Speaker, that I am hardly prepared for this. The purpose of the amendment is stated clearly in the explanatory note, which reads:
The purpose of this amendment is to provide representation for electors resident in the district of Patricia north of the electoral district of Kenora-Rainy River.
This bill was introduced at the last regular session of 1930 and was opposed by the opposition of that time for the reason, I believe, that they did not have proper infor-

Armistice Day Act
mation. For the benefit of the house, I may say that the electors north of Kenora located in this district were denied the vote in 1925 and again in 1926, and the bill introduced at the last regular session of 1930, just prior to the federal election, was for the purpose of giving votes to the miners, labourers and others residing north of Kenora. I am asking this house to follow what was done by the government of Ontario. Prior to the provincial elections in 1929 the provincial government changed their representation act in order to take in this territory. At the last federal redistribution the territory was cut off on the south bank of the English river, but since that time mining developments have opened up in the Red Lake district, the Woman River district and at Pine Falls. With these mines and with the development of waterpower some 500 to 600 electors were disfranchised during the last federal elections I am sure when the Prime Minister opposed this measure when it was last before the house he was not fully aware of the fact that there would be between 500 and 600 people disfranchised in this country. Unfortunately I had to be absent from the house when the bill was up for its second reading and I was not in position to give the required information.
I believe the Prime Minister was misinformed in the position he took when the matter was last before the house. These people were not permitted to vote during the last campaign because of a ruling given by the chief electoral officer. It is unfair and unjust to deprive citizens of this part of the country especially-if I am permitted to specialize-those hard-working pioneers who are creating new wealth in northern Ontario or in other parts of the country of the privilege of casting their ballots, and I ask that this bill be given its second reading.
On motion of Mr. Cahan the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved the second reading of Bill No. 8, to amend the Armistice Day Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very short and simple bill. It provides that two sections of the Armistice Day Act, passed in 1921, shall be repealed and the bill of which I am now moving the second reading substituted therefor.
This bill provides that the celebration of Armistice Day shall be held on November
11 of each year and on no other day, whereas the previous act provided that it should be held on the Monday of the week in which November 11 fell. The bill says nothing about Thanksgiving day, so the procedure in that regard will revert to what it was prior to 1921. It will be at the option of the government to proclaim when Thanksgiving day shall be celebrated, not necessarily in November but perhaps in October.
The old act has been the law for ten years, and one would have supposed that what opposition there might have been to it originally would have died out, but on the contrary it has been increasing year after year. The reason why this opposition did not come to a 'head sooner is, I believe, that a great many soldiers did not know that that was the law. Many of them simply went ahead and celebrated Armistice day on November 11 regardless of what day was fixed by law. They are beginning to find out what is the law and there is a general feeling throughout the country that Armistice day should be celebrated on November 11 and on no other day. The only people wiho object to this proposal are commercial travellers who desire to be able to come home on a Friday or Saturday night and have a holiday on Monday. Perhaps there are a few others who would like to go to their homes and have a holiday on Monday, but I would point out that this day was never intended to be a public holiday in the sense of bank holidays and so on; it was intended as a remembrance day for the soldiers, and they are entitled to have it on that day. We never hear of any proposals to have Christmas day, New Year's day or the 1st of July held on the Monday of the week in which tihose particular days fall.
This matter is solely and entirely the concern of the returned men and we as a governing body ought to respect their wishes. It has nothing to do with what other people want, and the soldiers should surely have the right to decide.
I have no desire to take up the time of the house, but I have stacks of supporting resolutions and letters from every part of the country. I have a communication from the Dominion executive council of the Canadian Legion, and they refer also to a resolution passed at the Dominion convention held last November. I have received resolutions adopted by a large number of bodies, one from Mrs. Barnard who represents one thousand women of the British Columbia Women's provincial command. There are others from various bodies in the west and elsewhere, some representing five hundred and more
Armistice Day Act
[Stage Direction]
returned men. In no single instance have I received objection from any soldier, let alone any representative body of soldiers.
I would repeat that this has nothing at all to do with and will not interfere with Thanksgiving day. Thanksgiving day can be celebrated on any day which the government sees fit to name, but the soldiers are asking that Armistice day be celebrated only on November 11. When it is observed on some other day they find difficulty in getting away from their occupation or business to carry on their own celebration on November 11. They regard this day not as a holiday but as a day of sacred remembrance.
I do not believe there will be any objection to this bill from any section of the country, and I trust it will receive the support of the house.
Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I am thoroughly in accord with the remarks of the introducer of this bill, with one slight exception to which I will refer a little later. I find that it is almost the unanimous wish of the returned men and their families in British Columbia, and I presume it is the same throughout the rest of Canada, that this change be made. Thanksgiving day has always been associated in our minds with the harvest festival, which originated when the pilgrim fathers garnered their first crop in 1641. The soldiers are perfectly right in asking for this change, and I agree with the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) that their wishes should be respected.
I received a communication from the Dominion headquarters Of the Canadian Legion, one clause of which reads as follows:
Be it therefore resolved-that we request that the parliament of Canada be requested and do hereby respectfully request it to enact legislation whereby in place of the present Thanksgiving day, November 11 in every year shall be set aside as a national holiday to be known as Remembrance day.
Those of us who gather each year before the cenotaphs throughout the country know that the thoughts associated with Thanksgiving day are forgotten. The sad memories usually connected with Armistice day take away from the joyousness which should prevail on Thanksgiving day. It is the wish of the soldier bodies that this day be known as Remembrance day, and I think we should acquiesce in their wishes.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber):
That the word ''Armistice" in the last line be struck out and the word "Remembrance" substituted therefor.


Mr. NEILL:: I rise to a point of order. It is not customary on the second reading to amend the details of a bill. I suggest that the hon. member wait until we go into committee. I have no objection to the proposal.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The amendment as suggested is not in order at this stage. The motion is for the second reading of the bill. The amendment as such would have to be proposed as an amendment to the bill when it is under consideration in committee.


James Arthurs: In view of the fact that this is not a political question, that it has aroused a great deal of feeling throughout Canada, and that there are differences of opinion on the subject, I would move that the debate be now adjourned.


Alan Webster Neill: Looks like a stall! On the
motion to adjourn the debate I would point out-


Richard Bedford Bennett: This motion is not debatable.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Arthurs) which was agreed to on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs:
Arthurs,
Barber,
Bari beau,
Barrette,
Beaubier,
Belec,
Bell (St. John-Albert), Bennett,
Beynon,
Bowman,
Boyes,
Bury,
Cahan,
Cantley,
Cormier,
Cowan (LongLake), Dickie,
Dorion,
Duguay,
Duranleau,
Eraser (Cariboo), Geary,
Gobeil,
Gordon,
Hackett,
Hay,
Larue,
Laurin,
LaVergne,
Loucks,
Macdonald (Kings), Macdougall.
MacMillan (Saskatoon) MaeNicol,
McDade,
McGill is,
MeLure,
Manion,
Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon),
Morand,
Mullins,
Murphy,
Myers,
Perley (Qu'Appelle), Pettit,
Plunkett,
Porteous,
Price,
Quinn,
Robinson,
Sauv4,
Senn,
Shaver,
Simpson (Simcoe North),
Simpson (Algoma West). _
Smith (Victoria-Carleton),
Smoke,
Spankie,
Spence,
Stanley,
Stewart (Leeds), Stewart (Lethbridge), Stinson.
Stitt (Nelson),
Stitt (Selkirk), Sutherland,
Swanston,
Tetrault,
Thompson (Simcoe East),
Thompson (Lanark), Tummon,
Weese,
White (Mount Royal), Willis.-74.

Rules-Members Not Voting
++NAYS
Messrs:
Beaubien,
Bertrand,
Bouchard,
Boucher,
Bourassa,
Brasset,
Brown,
Butcher,
Cardin,
Casgrain,
Cayley,
Chevrier,
Coote,
Denis,
Deslauriers,
Desrochers,
Dubois,
Dumaine,
Fontaine,
Gardiner,
Garland (BowRiver), Gershaw,
Hall,
Hanson (Skeena), Heaps,
Howden,
Irvine,
Kennedy (Peace River),
Motion agreed to
King, Mackenzie, Lucas,
Luchkovich,
Maclnnis,
Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre),
McIntosh,
McMillan (Huron South),
MePhee,
Merrier (Laurier-Outremont),
Neill,
Parent,
Reid,
Rheaume,
Rinfret.
Robitaille,
St-Pere,
Sanderson,
Speakman,
Spencer,
Stewart (Edmonton West),
Totzke,
Veniot,
Verville,
Woodsworth.-52.
and debate adjourned.
the house adjourned with-to standing order.
At eleven o'clock out question put, pursuant
Tuesday, April 28, 1931