1932-03-21

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Mondays after the 21st March instant, until the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I hold in my hand the St. John Telegraph-Journal for March 19, 1932, which contains the report of a speech delivered in the New Brunswick legislature on Friday last by the Minister of Public Works for that province, in which reference is made to myself. The report states:
In Gloucester the ex-Postmaster General had made charges which, if based on facts, would have been grave.
At his request, Hon. Mr. Stewart continued, an official from the federal government had investigated the charges, which were disproven.
The complaints I made to the department were not reported on at all. A report was submitted by Mr. Carter, referring to only one complaint which, after all, was not made to him by myself, and in that connection he stated that no federal money had been expended on that particular road. When I was 'speaking on February 23 the Minister of Labour interrupted to state that on none of the roads mentioned by me in connection with my complaints had federal money been expended. I differed with the minister and repeated the statement that federal grants had been made in connection with the roads upon which my complaints were based. I have before me a report submitted by the Minister of Public Works of the province of New Brunswick, which was laid on the table of the legislature last week and which gives the list of works for which federal aid has been received. The name of every road mentioned by me on February 23 is to be found in that list.
I take objection to the statement that the complaints or charges which I had to make have been disproved. That is not the case, and I am prepared to stand by what I stated at that time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. REID:: What sums of money were granted or given by way of a loan, to the province of British Columbia for purposes other than grants or loans under the Unemployment Relief Act of 1931, during the fiscal year 1931-1932, giving the amount of money, if any, so granted and the respective dates any such moneys were given and for what specific purpose?


Mr. CAHAN:: 
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-UNITED STATES COAL
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	What is the amount of United States coal: (a) anthracite; (b) bituminous, used by the Canadian National Railways during the year 1931?
2.	What was the cost of such coal?
3.	What is the analysis of the marketable grade of United States coal used on Canadian National Railways compared with the marketable grade of: (a) Springhill; (b) Cape Breton coal suitable for such use?
4.	What are the comparative prices of such Cape Breton coal, Springhill coal and American coal delivered at Montreal and Toronto by water?
5.	Is there a satisfactory coal handling plant at Toronto and Levis, and what coal storage is there in each of such places?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	(a) United States anthracite 6,350 tons;
(b)	United States bituminous 1,585,459 tons.
2.	The cost of United States anthracite was $59,333.13, or $9.34 per ton on cars Canadian National tracks. The cost of United States bituminous was $6,182,479, or $3.90 per ton f.o.b. cars Canadian National tracks, duty paid.
3.	Approximate chemical analyses on "air dry" basis are as follows:
-	R/M Pittsburg No. 8 seam, Belmont Co., Ohio	Nut Freeport seam, Armstrong Co., Pa.	R/M Pittsburg seam, Indiana Co., Pa.	. Egg Pittsburg seam, Monongalia Co., N.W. Va.	R/M Cape Breton various mines, Sydney area	R/M SpringhillMoisture	
Volatile	
Fixed carbon	
Ash	
Sulphur	
B.T.U	1-50 39-50 50-90 8-10 4-00 13,500	0-	97 32-52 60-04 6-47 1-	82 14,256	1-00 33-28 59-05 6-67 1-51 14,232	0-	83 35-44 57-39 6-34 1-	52 14,377	1-38 32-32 58-45 7-85 3-29 13,834	1-55 32-27 58-62 - 7-56 1-71 13,654
These figures are based on C.N.R. sampling and analyses, and are considered by Canadian National authorities to be representative.
4.	Water delivery at Montreal; duty and wharfage paid: Cape Breton coal, $5.10 on cars; Springhill coal, no information; United States coal, $4.78, including exchange, $4.52, excluding exchange; British Coal, $4.38.
The above figures are f.o.b. cars and do not include anything for winter storage, etc.
Water delivery at Toronto: Cape Breton coal, $5.65 to $5.75 f.a.s., $5.94 to $6.04 on cars, wharfage paid; Springhill coal, no information; United States coal ex Erie, $4.12 on cars including wharfage, with exchange, $3.86 on cars including wharfage, without exchange.
Water delivery to Toronto, thence rail to Mimieo, add 10 cents to above figures, as approximate out-of-pocket cost of haul.
Note.-The cost of water delivery of Cape Breton coal to Toronto, is not credited with any subvention, as it is the understanding of the railway company that subvention assistance so far only applies to railborne movement.
5.	In the opinion of the Canadian National Railway authorities there is not a satisfactory coal-handling plant at Toronto. At Levis there is one. There is no coal storage space adjoining the Levis plant, but there is space

for 250,000 tons at Joffre, nine miles from Levis dock.
The railway officials claim that the analysis of a coal does not tell the whole story, because some coals may be fairly high inB.T.U's, but are friable and difficult to handle. However, the analyses given are representative of coals which the railway is now using.
There is no Springhill coal, so far as the company is aware, shipped by water to Montreal.
In all cases the figures used relate to net tons.


WEDGEPORT, N.S.-LONG WHARF
Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Were moneys paid out in cash by the foreman or other person paying workmen, in connection with the repairs to Long wharf at Wedgeport under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931?
2.	If so, to whom and in what amount, and by what method was such cash made available to such persons or person?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1 and 2. All wages at Wedgeport, NS., unemployment relief works were paid by individual cheques sent to the foreman for distribution.

Questions


MONTREAL ELEVATORS
Mr. ROSS:: 1.	How much grain has been received in Montreal elevators, shipped or transferred from Buffalo, U.S.A.?
2.	How much of this grain arrived in: (a) Canadian boats; (b) American boats; (c) Eastern Transportation Company boats?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	See statement below.
2.	See statement below
Canadian grain shipped from United States ports (principally Buffalo), to Canadian ports (principally Montreal), down the Welland Canal.
Wheat	Oats	Barley	Totalbushels 282,700 9,634,700 3,435,038	bushels	bushels 31,000 1,516,750 337,605	bushels 313,700 11,247,155 3,772,643195,705	In Eastern Steamship Company boats	
Included in "Canadian Boats".


NEW GLASGOW, N.S.-WHARF
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	What amount of money was expended by the government during the year 1931 on repairs and extensions to the public wharf at New Glasgow, Nova Scotia: (a) for material; (b) for labour?
2.	Who was the foreman in charge of the
work ?
3.	What remuneration did he receive?
4. On	whose	recommendation	was	he
appointed?
5.	In what capacity was Clifford Rose of New Glasgow employed?
6.	What remuneration did he receive?
7. On	whose	recommendation	was he
appointed?
8.	By whom was the timber for said work supplied?
9.	Were tenders called for the supply of timber ?
10.	Who was the lowest tenderer?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.
(a)	Material	$ 6,027 63(b)	Labour	
4,678 20

2.	J. H. McDonald
3.	$5 per day for 81 days from November 19, 1931, to February 23, 1932, total $405.
4.	District engineer.
5.	Employed as sub-foreman.
6.	$4.50 per day for 81 days from November 19, 1931, to February 23, 1932, total, $364.50.
7.	District engineer.
8.	C. H. Glendinning, New Glasgow, N.S.
9.	Yes.
10.	C. H. Glendinning lowest on whole order.


LIEUT .-COL. DANIEL SUTHERLAND
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	In connection with inspection of wharves and other construction work by the present government, what position does Lt.-Col. Daniel Sutherland, formerly of Halifax, Nova Scotia, and now of Pictou, Nova Scotia, hold?
2.	On whose recommendation was he
appointed?	_
3.	What are his duties and his salary?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Supervising foreman for eastern Nova Scotia, in connection with works carried out by Public Works department and authorized under Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931.
2.	District engineer.
3.	(a) Answered by No. 1; (b) $7 per day.


CHAMBLY CANAL-SUPERINTENDENT
Mr. GOULET:: 1.	How was the present superintendent of the Chambly canal appointed?
2.	Who asked for the inquiry which was held last year in connection with certain employees of the Chambly canal?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Appointed by Civil Service Commission, after usual advertisement calling for applications.
2.	Hon. Mr. Duranleau.


JOSEPH DESROSIERS
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	Is Joseph Desrosiers, inspector of fruits,
in the county of Rimouski, still in the employ of the government?	_
2.	What was the total amount of salary paid to him from July 28, 1930, to January 1, 1932?
3.	Is he paid by the day or by the month?
Questions


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Yes.
2.	$1,528.85.
3.	By the month except for occasional work on per diem basis during the period of the year when he is not on continuous duty.


TECHNICAL EDUCATION GRANTS
Mr. SPEAKMAN:: 1.	What sums, if any, have been paid each province, under the provisions of the act passed by this parliament last session, and which provided for the payment of an annual grant, for the purpose of assisting technical and vocational education?
2.	Was an order in council issued, suspending the payment of this grant?
3. If so, when was this order in council issued, under what authority, and for what period was the payment of this grant suspended?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to rescind the said order in council within the near future?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	None.
2.	No.
3 and 4. Answered by No. 2.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	When were projects to aid unemployment m the province of Quebec for the year 1931, submitted to the federal government for approval, and what projects were so approved?
2.	What amount was allocated to the province of Quebec for unemployment relief works up to March 31, 1931, and how much for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932?
3.	'What projects were approved for the year ending March 31, 1932, and what were the dates of approval?
4.	What projects, if any, were approved in the years 1931 and 1932, to the 31st of March, in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay, and for what amount in each case?


CENSUS ENUMERATORS-BROME, MISSISQUOI
Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	Who was in charge of the census enumerators in Brome-Missisquoi in 1931, and how much did he receive for his services?
2.	Who was the enumerator in each municipality, and how much was each paid?


Mr. STEVENS:: Tabled herewith.


TRADE WITH ARGENTINE
Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: 1.	Of what commodities did our exports and imports with Argentine consist in each of the years 1930 and 1931?
2.	What were the amounts and values of same, by months, in each of the said years?
3.	Does the general or the intermediate tariff rate apply on goods between Canada and Argentine ?
[Mr. LaFleche.l



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-DINING CAR EMPLOYEES

Mr. LAFLECHE:: What are the names of the employees on the dining cars of the Canadian National Railways travelling between Montreal and Halifax?



CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE

Mr. LAFLEHCE:: 1.	What are the names of all vessels of the Canadian merchant marine?
2.	What are the names of the men manning each of said vessels?



J. D. PARMELEE

Mr. PICKEL:: 1.	What was the amount of the travelling and other expenses, year by year, from 1919-20 to 1924-25 of Mr. J. D. Parmalee, late inspector of customs for the Sherbrooke division ?
2.	What was the amount for travelling and other expenses year by year from 1926-27 to date, for the same services performed by Mr. J. C. A. Bordereau, present customs inspector of the same division?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. POWER:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, reports and pay sheets, giving in detail the name of each person employed, the amounts paid for labour, and the amounts paid for material in connection with work performed at Levis, Quebec, under order in council, P.C. 2650.



VALCARTIER CAMP

Charles Gavan Power: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, reports and pay sheets, giving in detail the name of each person employed, the amounts paid for labour, and the amounts paid for material in connection with repairs and improvements at Valcartier camp, Quebec, under order in council, P.C. 2650.



FORTIFICATION WALL-QUEBEC

Charles Gavan Power: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, reports and pay sheets, giving in detail the name of each person employed, the amounts paid for labour, and the amounts paid for material in connection with work performed on the fortification wall at Quebec, under order in council, P.C. 2650.



JERSEY COVE, QUEBEC, LIGHT KEEPER

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, including copy of evidence heard at the inquiry in connection with the charge of political partisanship against Mr. Camille Dunn, of Cap des Hosiers, lighthouse keeper at Jersey cove, county of G-aspe.

Questions



ST. GEDEON, QUEBEC-WHARF

Mr. DUGUAY:: For a copy of all correspondence, accounts, and vouchers, relating to the expenditure in connection with the wharf at St. Gedeon, from January 1, 1929, to December 31, 1930.



IVRY, QUEBEC, POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, inquiries, reports, petitions and other documents, in connection with the dismissal of Joseph Morneau, postmaster at Ivry, county of
Temiscouata. Quebec, and the appointment of his successor.



LAMY SUD, QUEBEC, POSTMASTERSHIP

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, inquiries, reports, petitions and other documents, in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Narcisse Ouellet, postmaster of Lamy Sud, county of Temiscouata, Quebec, and the appointment of his successor.



RAUDOT, QUEBEC, POSTMASTERSHIP

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, inquiries, reports, petitions and other documents, in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Andre Beaulieu, postmaster of Raudot, county of Temiscouata, Quebec, and the appointment of his successor.



CHEMIN DU EAC, QUE, POSTMASTER

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, inquiries, reports, petitions and other documents. in connection with the dismissal of Mr. A. Belanger, postmaster of Chemin du Lac, county of Temiscouata, Quebec, and the appointment of his successor.



RIOU, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, inquiries, reports, petitions and other documents, in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Omer Sirois, postmaster of Riou, Quebec, and the appointment of his successor.



DENONVILLE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, inquiries, reports, petitions and other documents, in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Thomas Dube, as postmaster of Denonville, county of Temiscouata, Quebec, and the appointment of his successor.



NORMANDIN, QUE., POSTMASTER

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, inquiries, reports, petitions and other documents, in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at Normandin, Lake St. John, and the appointment of his successor.



ISIDORE JEAN

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Mr. Isidore Jean, of Sully, Quebec, and all other ministers, except those of the Post Office and Pensions and National Health, relating to the position of postmaster at Sully, Quebec.



WEDGEPORT, N.S., LONG WHARF

Mr. RALSTON:: For a return showing the pay sheets, vouchers and particulars of the moneys expended in connection with the repairs on Long wharf, Wedgeport, Nova Scota, under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931.
ANNUAL TRAINING COSTS, 1931 Mr. RALSTON:
For a return showing the amount spent in each military district for the annual training in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932.



CARLYLE, SASK., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Post Office Department or any official thereof, and any person or persons between August, 1930, and September, 1931, relative to the mail contract for transfer of the mail between the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway depots at Carlyle, Saskatchewan.



QUEBEC, UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Joseph-François Laflèche: For a copy of all correspondence and resolutions in possession of the Labour department, forwarded by the Quebec government and municipalities, requesting delay in carrying out public works in connection with the unemployment relief.



GEO. HUDON

Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, documents, reports, evidence and inquiries in connection with certain complaints made against Geo. Hudon, an employee of customs and excise at Chambord. Lake St. John, during the years 1930 and 1931.



GIRONDE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, reports, inquiries and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Johnny April, as postmaster at Gironde, county of Temiscouata, and the appointment of his successor.



MONTAGNE RONDE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, inquiries, reports and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. David Lebel, as postmaster of Montagne Ronde, Quebec, and the appointment of his successor.
Motions for Papers



LA KICHARDIERE, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, inquiries, reports, petitions and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Joseph Michaud, as postmaster of La Richar-dierre, Quebec, and the appointment of his successor.



VOCATIONAL EDUCATION ACT, 1931

Mr. HEENAN:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents in connection with the decision of the government to postpone the operation of the Vocational Education Act, 1931.



AUGUSTE TETREAULT, DISMISSAL

Mr. RHEAUME:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Auguste Tetrault, postmaster at Henryville, county of Iberville. Also for a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in connection with an inquiry held in 1931 relating to charges lodged against said Auguste Tetrault, including the evidence of all witnesses heard in said inquiry and the report made by the commissioner.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. SPENOER (for Mr. Garland, Bow River):: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, medical reports and findings in respect of Sapper Harry Brown, Reg. No. 2503424-pension No. 114467.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it has not
been customary to bring down documents with respect to individuals in connection with pension matters, and I submit that this order should not pass. There are obvious reasons why correspondence in connection with individual cases should not be laid before the house. The pensions tribunal is always ready and willing to give members of parliament any information that may be thought desirable. but to bring down such particulars as are asked for here has not been customary heretofore. I ask that the member content himself with having made the inquiry and let the motion drop.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) to allow the resolution to stand?


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member for
Bow River is out of the house, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the motion stand for the time being.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In the absence of the
member for Bow River, No. 14 will stand.
[Mr. Pouliot.l



WAR PENSIONS, 1931-32-NORTH BATTLEFORD

Mr. McINTOSH:: For a return showing all European war pensions paid by the Department of Pensions and National Health to veterans or their dependents in the North Battleford federal constituency during the fiscal year 1931-32, showing:	(a) the names and addresses in
alphabetical order of those receiving said pensions; (b) the amount of the pension; (c) qualification therefor; (d) date of commencement of pension; (e) classification of pension, that is whether the pension was given for services in the naval, militia or air forces of His Majesty's government in Canada or any other self-governing community of the British commonwealth of nations.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that this motion be dropped. It is not customary for the department to table information such as that asked for; it is not considered to be in the public interest.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thought it was considered in the interest of the public or I would not have asked for it. If that is the only answer the minister has I will have to report it to my riding.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh. oh.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: We will see just what
advantage you can get out of it.


Murray MacLaren: All other requests of the same character have not been complied with; that is the general practice.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the hon. member
willing to drop the resolution?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am not ready to drop the resolution unless I can get the information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman should be aware that there is no constituency list maintained. To secure the information would necessitate going over the whole list of pensioners.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I might state to the
Prime Minister that when I asked for the post office addresses of each man interested I figured that the department could give me the information for the constituency as they have the post office addresses to which they send the pension cheques every month. I cannot see why the information cannot be given.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would take a year or
two to get it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the resolution be
dropped?

Maritime Fisheries, Quebec


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I am going
to try to get the information from another source. If I cannot get it I will come back to this house again.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Do I understand the hon. gentleman is not dropping the resolution?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: If you insist, Mr. Speaker, I guess I will have to.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is very graciously
done.


Murray MacLaren: If the hon. member will call at the department the officials will be only too willing to assist him in any way they can, but it is not customary to table such information as he asks for.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is a different
answer from that which the minister gave at first, and I thank him for his statement.


Mr. COTNAM:: Publish it in your metropolitan paper.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Just keep the change.
You go back and report to your own riding; never mind mine.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I have a statement to
[DOT] make.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. The motion is
aot a subject of debate.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am not debating it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion is dropped,
and the matter is not debatable.



MARITIME FISHERIES, QUEBEC

Pierre-François Casgrain: That, in the opinion of this house, it is desirable that the Dominion government should cooperate to a greater extent with the provincial government in order to assist the maritime fisheries in the province of Quebec.
He said: I am bringing this motion to the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker, because a similar motion was adopted by the legislature of Quebec at the instance of the hon. member who represents the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay, Mr. Rochette, in the local house, seconded by his colleague for Gaspe, Mr. Chouinard.
It is not my intention to relate the history of the fishing industry in the province of Quebec. Suffice it to say that the history of the new world and of Quebec is intimately connected with the fisheries of the Atlantic seaboard, part of which is in the province
of Quebec. Who does not remember reading in the history of Canada that in the early days of its settlement our fishermen from Brittany and the Basque country used to come and fish in the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence, in the river itself?
In the early days of New France, and after the conquest, our fisheries were subjected to all sorts of troubles. Even after confederation several cases were taken as far as the privy council to determine the respective jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments. The last judgment rendered in 1920 declared the administration and control of the fisheries of the interior to be in the provincial government, but that jurisdiction over the fisheries in salt water rested with the federal authorities, subject to the qualification that the provincial jurisdiction was supreme in so far as the soil of the province was concerned. Paragraph number two of the order in council dated February 13, 1922, which gave the administration of the fisheries to the province of Quebec, reads:
That as under the privy council decision of November 30, 1920, the province has the exclusive power to grant the right to fix engines to the soil, where the soil is vested in the crown in the right of the province, so far as such engines and the affixing of them do not interfere with the right of the public to fish or prevent the regulation of the right of fishing by private persons without the aid of such engines.
After this judgment of the privy council had been rendered, several orders in council were passed by both the federal and provincial governments vesting in the province of Quebec the administration of the fisheries in salt waters within the limits of the province. Since the provincial government has had control of the administration of the fisheries within the limits of the province they have made marvellous progress. A department called the Service des Pecheries Maritimes, with Mr. Gibault, an expert in fisheries, at its head, was created, which department is now presided over by the Hon. Mr. Laferte. Since that time an amount has been included in the annual estimates of his department to help the development of the fishing industry. The present government has rendered more assistance to this industry than any previous government. I think I am safe in saying that approximately $300,000 is spent annually to develop the fisheries within the limits of the province.
The provincial government has given assistance to the fishermen by the distribution of guns and ammunition with which to destroy the porpoises, which have caused great trouble to the fishermen during the last few years. A grant of $4 per keel foot is given towards the
Maritime Fisheries, Quebec

construction of new schooners, and also a subsidy of twenty-five per cent of the total cost of equipping such vessels, up to the sum of $500. These subsidies have been of great assistance to the fishermen in remodelling their fishing apparatus and tackle, as well as providing work during the slack seasons. Apart from this, the provincial government has carried on public works and undertakings on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, in the county which I represent, to provide assistance for destitute fishermen. This has been especially the case during the past few years, during which time poor fishing conditions have prevailed on the north shore. It has been said that the porpoises are the great cause of trouble and annoyance to the fishermen and might be considered as one of the reasons for the poor conditions which have prevailed on the north shore, but I do not think that is the case. The problem which faces the fishermen is that of selling their fish on the domestic and foreign markets. Previously, fish could be dried or salted, but to-day the public require fresh fish, and this product controls the market. The fisheries of the province will meet with success and come into their own only when their efforts are directed towards the production of fresh fish.
At the present time there are between four and five thousand vessels engaged in fishing and employing between ten and twelve thousand people. In 1930 the value of the production was $2,502,998, the salt water production being valued at $1,976,798 and the production from interior waters, $526,200. This question is of vital importance to the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay, which I have the honour to represent, because a large portion of the people living on the north shore of the river derive their livelihood from the fisheries. This is true also of a large part of the population of the counties of Gaspe and Bonaventure. Deep water fishing is to be. found along the north shore and I remember a few years ago when buyers from Nova Scotia, such as the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysboro (Mr. Duff), the former member for Lunenburg, and some of his friends used to purchase fish from our people.


Mr. DUFF:: We do yet.
Mr. CASGRAIN. They do yet.
No industry, however great it may be, can expand unless its affairs receive wise administration and a methodical program of expansion is carried on. The last year the federal government had the administration of the fisheries it spent in the province of Quebec about $88,000. At that time the maritime provinces received about one million dollars

and the province of British Columbia, approximately $400,000. To-day the maritime provinces and British Columbia receive equal assistance while the province of Quebec has not received any subsidy since the year 1922. The federal government derives its revenues from all the provinces and, to my mind, when distributing subsidies it should give to each province a share proportionate to its population and to the need for the development of the fishing industry.
If my information is correct, the federal government receives about twenty-five per cent of its revenue from provinces from the province of Quebec. The average budget of the Department of Fisheries amounts to about $2,000,000 and, based on revenue received, Quebec should receive about $500,000. In other words, the Dominion government should spend half a million dollars in the development of the fisheries in Quebec, As I said a moment ago, the maritime provinces receive about $1,000,000 a year, and it would appear that they are receiving our share. Our province is the natural outlet for the products of the fisheries of the east, and yet the share of assistance to which we are entitled goes to help the maritimes to shut out our fishermen from their own markets.
No doubt the objection will be raised that as Quebec has control over its own fisheries it should look after them. Quebec controls its fisheries in the same manner as it controls its agriculture, mines and natural resources, and the federal government makes a contribution by way of subsidies to the development of agriculture and mining within the province. The federal government maintains in Quebec sixty-four demonstration farms and has a remount depot at St. Joachim. The government cooperates with the provincial government in the raising of sheep and hogs, and cooperates in the providing of assistance along other lines. The federal government also conducts scientific research in bacteriology and mining and has financed expeditions under the control of the Department of the Interior. All this has been done although the province controls its own natural resources. The federal government is seeking markets outside of Canada for our wheat. Why should the same assistance not be given to the fishing industry in my province? Instead of helping the fishing industry, the federal government last year imposed a duty on goods coming from Italy, with the result that the Italian government through Mussolini has imposed a duty of 15 per cent on fish coming from Canada. This affects in particular dried cod for which Italy offered a profitable market to the fishermen of Quebec.

.	Maritime Fisheries, Quebec
Instead of aiding the fishing industry which is one of the largest in Quebec, the government, by their tariff changes of last year, have injured it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How?


Pierre-François Casgrain: On account of the imposition by the federal government of those duties that were placed against Italy, the Italian government imposed a duty of 15 per cent against dried cod for which, prior to that time, the fishermen of Quebec had a good market in Italy and also in Germany.
I have not Germany particularly in mind now.
I know the outlet for cod was more especially in Italy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are other countries in the same position.


Pierre-François Casgrain: That may be so, but this action on the part of the federal government has been detrimental to my province and particularly to the marketing of our cod.
There is in Ottawa a biological service with stations at St. Andrews and Halifax, but we have nothing of that kind in Quebec. This branch of the Department of Fisheries conducts scientific research work and has technical men carrying on investigations and practical tests. I am informed that thirty-five investigations were made in the maritime provinces through this branch of the fisheries service in Ottawa and am advised that no similar research work has been carried on in Quebec. Investigations of this character might have been carried on along the north shore of the St. Lawrence in regard to halibut, scallops and lobsters, which I am told also abound in that district. Last July, due to the efforts of Mr. Copley Amory, a resident of the United States, a gentleman who has large interests on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, a scientific convention was held at a place below the seven islands, where this gentleman has an extensive establishment. Gentlemen were invited there from all parts of the world including Denmark and Norway, and I understand representatives from the provincial government also attended.
I am told the Deputy Minister of Fisheries was invited to be present, but I do not know whether the federal government gave any assistance in connection with this convention in order to help the people who are really making an effort to discover a solution of our problems and to develop the fisheries. I have not before me the report of the work of that convention.



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
There is also in operation under control of the Department of Fisheries, for the benefit of the maritimes and British Columbia, a fishery intelligence service furnishing information to fishermen as to water temperatures and movements of fish, but in Quebec we have not had the benefit of such a service. There is also in operation under the control of the Department of Fisheries, for the benefit of the maritime provinces, a fish collection service, a service which has often placed the purchaser in contact with the fisherman. We have never had in Quebec the benefit of such a service. The best service which fishermen of Quebec have had in order to help them to market their fish was through the efforts of the provincial government in assisting in the establishment of a special department through La Societe Cooperative Federe which has aided farmers and fishermen in marketing their products.
In the past, fish, salted, dried and pickled was accepted in the markets of the world; to-day things have changed and there is a much greater demand for fresh fish, the sale of which is more remunerative. Our fishermen of the north shore of the St. Lawrence, are however, not able to adopt these new methods in order to compete with other people on the markets of the world for fresh fish, because they have no money to build, equip and maintain the modern refrigerating plants necessary to preserve their fish and bait. Being far away from the large centres and being served only once a week in summer by a steamboat service, the fishermen of the north shore are thus at a disadvantage with other fishermen. In the province of Quebec, 90 per cent of the fresh fish used is imported for the most part from the states of New England and from British Columbia. On account of the lack of refrigerating plants our fishermen are compelled to sell at a low price to the export trade 60 per cent of their production, the greater part of which is salted, dried, or pickled fish. The only thing the federal government is doing is to supply the fishermen with plans and designs for the refrigerating plants; no subsidy or help of any kind has ever been given in that connection. The provincial government is considering the adoption of a system for establishing along the north shore of the St. Lawrence and other places where there are many fishermen, some of these refrigerating plants, but of course the cost of this would be very high and as they would not be able to obtain the help of the fishermen who are very poor, they require the assistance of the federal government.

[Stage Direction]
Maritime Fisheries, Quebec
[Stage Direction]
Let me now quote a few paragraphs from the publication known as Les Ressources Na-turelles de Quebec, 1924:
'Translation):
The gulf of St. Lawrence is still in its infancy as regards the development of its fisheries. There are vast stretches of coast and numerous "banks" which have never been fished, except by the antiquated hook-and-line methods. Yet these waters are one of the world's chief congregating places for the cod, while many other varieties, including halibut and the unrivalled Atlantic salmon, are also more or less numerous in certain localities, and sea trout swarm in the brackish waters of the rivers where they meet the tide water.
Strange to say, most of the fish consumed in the province has been coming from the United States. Advertisements of fresh cod shipped direct from Portland, Maine, frequently appear in the Montreal papers. More remarkable still, fish from the Pacific coast is advertised and sold as far east as Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, 3,000 miles or more from the waters where they are caught, while the salmon and cod and other fine varieties of fish at the very door of the province have been exported in a salted or dried condition to Europe, the West Indies and the United States. It would appear, therefore, that opportunity exists for enterprising fishermen to build up a considerable home market for their catch.
Our sea fisheries like many other industries are at the present time suffering through lack of proper markets. It is most essential that something be done to help them, because in aiding them we help the country at large and are building up a real Canadian industry which at all times in our history has been considered basic. Lest the government say that they are powerless as regards the sea fisheries of Quebec, on account of the fact that the administration of the fisheries was taken over by the provincial government, let me read from the order in council passed in 1922 when the federal government transferred the administration of the fisheries to the provincial government:
Mr. CASGRAIN (translation):: The Minister recommends that the whole administration of the Department of Fisheries which is amen-ab!e to the Fisheries Act and regulations thereof should be transferred to the provincial authorities.
There is nothing in that order in council which prevents the federal government giving assistance to the provincial authorities. The administration of all the laws of the federal parliament formerly administered through the Department of Fisheries, is transferred to the provincial government of Quebec. As I said before, our agriculture and our mines are helped by the federal government, but we have not been able to obtain any assistance from this government for the fisheries in Quebec. The reason I have placed this resolution

on the order paper is that there seems to be growing at the present time in Quebec a greater interest in what should be done in the way of developing the fishing industry. I have in my hand a pamphlet which is called Le Canada Frangais de Quebec, February, 1932, and under the heading of Le Developpement des Pecheries de la Province de Quebec, Professor Louis Berube has given many points which will be of interest to the house.
But as my time is rapidly passing I shall content myself with bringing this article to the attention of the government. The article entitled Le Developpement des pecheries de la province de Quebec, is divided under four headings as follows: Stabilisation de 1'industrie de la peche; Stabilisation et amelioration des conditions de vie chez les pficheurs; L'apport de la science au developpement des pecheries; L'apport de l'Etat au developpement des pecheries, and under the last heading this gentleman states:
(Translation):
"The carrying out of an exhaustive program of our maritime fishery development requires the cooperation of all and especially that of the government at Ottawa. Indeed, there are, as we shall later on discover, questions which are directly relevant of the jurisdiction and activities of the Dominion government and without the solution of which the activities of the provincial government are, so to speak, paralysed. There are, moreover, problems in which the cooperation of the two can but double the results to be obtained.
First, we shall insure the freedom of the seas, the protection of markets and the grading of products; in the second, scientific research and financial aid."
Further on he says:
The protection to be given to markets is very intimately linked with the tariff problem. The Dominion government, which, is solely in control, can therefore, alone, give the necessary protection' to our local markets, by levying a duty on foreign products; again alone it can foster our export markets by special tariff treaties. We might mention, as an instance, the 15 per cent duty levied at present by Italy on our dry fish. The Dominion government by agreeing to a tariff reduction on other articles would perhaps succeed in overcoming this drawback.
Other articles and other suggestions have been brought to my attention since this resolution has been on the order paper. One is in the form of a memorandum which I have received from Mr. S. J. Flynn, secretary-treasurer of the county of Gaspe. In paragraph one of the memorandum, under the heading, Aide du Gouvemement federal, appears this suggestion:
(Translation):
Finally, the Dominion government should further assist our fishermen by improving our fishing harbours, building breakwater barriers,

Maritim.e Fisheries, Quebec
dredging, etc., by establishing in all parts of the country meteorological stations to signal the approach of disastrous storms, help our fish markets by resorting to a protective tariff and the activities of its officials abroad or otherwise.
Further on he says:
We believe that a loyal agreement between the Dominion and provincial governments would place at our disposal a minimum of $300,000 per year, that is 50 per cent at least of the theoretical amount due and which could be used as follows:
1.	Establish a fishing centre:- _
(a)	Oceanographic station-Biological.
Oceanographic station-Economical.
This Dominion station would be the only means at our disposal to establish a permanent link with the International Council for sea exploration, and of which Canada forms part as well as France and the United States (American section).
(b)	Refrigerator for bait (Dominion Act, grant of 75 per cent).
(c)	Freezing plant (Dominion Act, grant of 30 per cent).
(d)	Service of fish collecting (Dominion service which is already in use in the other provinces) .	_
2.	Organize a more effective service of inspection (Dominion Act), This is requested by almost (95 per cent) the entire fishing industry of Canada;
3.	Organize an effective supervision and protective service: observance of the treaties and laws. Assistance to navigation, protection of the various coasts of the province of Quebec, Labrador, Anticosti, Madeleine Islands, etc., etc.; which is done, at present, through Halifax. Our own protective service was abolished in 1922.
4.	Organize a service of commercial and industrial intelligence for fishermen, fish dealers and heads of industries. (A service recommended since 1893 by F. X. Joncas). All the provinces, with the exception of Quebec, possess such a service.
5.	Begin a reasonable improvement of the ports which carry on fishing on a small scale;
6.	Organize a scientific, technical and administrative staff.
These gentlemen, as will be observed, are apparently very much concerned about the development of the fishing industry in the province of Quebec; they say that the best development of that industry cannot be obtained for the reasons mentioned unless the federal government give further assistance and cooperation to the provincial government. Since a similar debate took place last session in the local assembly at Quebec many delegations have interviewed the provincial govem-, ment. There was a delegation on the 15th of March, 1932, from Gaspe which was received by Hon. Mr. Hector Laferte, Minister of Fisheries in the province of Quebec, and on the 17th of March a delegation from Gaspe made representations to the chamber of commerce.
41761-82i
March 15, 1932. "Delegation from the Gaspe Peninsula to the Legislature. The hon. Mr. Hector Laferte, Minister of Colonization, Fish and Game receives an important delegation from the Gaspe Peninsula and the North
March 17, 1932. "The fishermen of the Gaspd Peninsula, and the fish dealers of Quebec wish to establish reciprocal markets. The former met the Chamber of Commerce. Both groups discussed the means to take so as to establish a Quebec market for the Gaspe products and vice versa."
Another reason which has prompted me to bring this resolution before the house is that I noticed in the newspapers a few months ago that other provinces which seem to have been well looked after by the government at all times have been seeking further assistance from this government. In the Montreal Star of January 27, 1932 I read this:
Fishermen Urge Government Aid Officers of Maritime Body interview Hon. E. N.
Rhodes
Ottawa, Jan. 27-(C.P.)-Claiming that nothing has been done for the fishermen comparable to what the Dominion government has done for agriculture, and asking for a comprehensive and intensive effort to place the Canadian fishing industry on a profitable and business-like basis, delegates from the United Maritime Fishermen presented an appeal yesterday to Hon. E. N. Rhodes, Minister of Fisheries.
Alfred Hanlon, Canso, N.S., president, and Bruce Burke, Drum Head, N.S., vice-president, laid before the Minister a resolution drawn up at a meeting of the federation in Halifax last Friday. Mr. Rhodes gave the brief considerable study, but advised the delegation that the department was doing everything possible under present economic conditions, to grapple with the unsatisfactory situation existing in this important industry. He will discuss the matter with the maritime officials again to-day, but no definite decision as to what extent the government will be able to act, will be available for some time.	,
The United Maritime Fishermen asked the government to place research men in the field to study marketing agents in foreign countries to represent the organized fishermen, broadcast regularly the trend of prices and market conditions, and to carry on with a competent staff of field men, educational work in production and selling.
So in case the government does anything for the people of these other provinces I should like the same consideration to be extended at the same time to the people that I have the honour to represent in this house as well as to the fishermen of Bonaventure and Gaspe counties and of the province of Quebec in general.
Another article which struck me was headed, "Fishing Industry facing Big Crisis-Maritime M. P. suggests solution in Canadian Club
address." The article goes on to quote my
Maritime Fisheries, Quebec

genial friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst), who is keenly interested in the development of the fishing industry in the maritime provinces.


Mr. ERNST:: And in Quebec too.


Pierre-François Casgrain: And in Quebec too. We are on the same ground there. My hon. friend is quoted in this despatch as follows:
Another remedy for the fishing industry was to be found in trade treaties, and the member for the Queens-Lunenburg constituency of Nova Scotia added that other remedies had been suggested to the government which he did not feel at liberty to discuss but he did believe that with encouragement the industry was going to come through.
If other remedies have been suggested to the government which my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg did not feel at liberty to discuss, when those remedies are brought forward I wish to see them applied for the benefit of the people of the other provinces and the country at large. The people of the province I represent should be given the same benefit and advantage as the people of other provinces. My hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg went on to say:
The speaker realized, because of the geographical conditions of the Dominion, that there were difficulties in the way of developing the fresh fish industry. Prime cod was being sold at a cent and a half a pound at the wharf and the fisherman could not understand the reason for the spread between the wholesale and retail prices. The fresh fish industry had been hard hit by the United States tariffs, which had practically shut out its chief market, and the extension of the Canadian market for such a perishable product presented many difficulties. Experiments were being tried with chemical ice which when it dissolved left no trace and no water, and other methods were also being tried to increase the per capita consumption in Canada, which would increase the livelihood of the men.
All these are reasons, Mr. Speaker, which have led me to believe that I would be derelict in my duty as a member of this house if I did not bring these facts to the attention of parliament and the government. In order to remedy the present existing conditions in the province of Quebec I think there should be a conference between the Dominion government and the provincial government at which the foundation of an entente could be laid defining the scope or field of operation of the province and of the dominion in order that out of such a conference proper cooperation between the two governments might be obtained. It is with this intention, sir, that I have brought this resolution before the house and that I submit it humbly for the consideration of the government. I do not want to play any politics in this matter. In presenting fMr. Casgrain.]
this resolution I am not seeking for myself or the party to which I belong any political advantage or benefit, and I trust that that will be the attitude of all hon. gentlemen on this question relating to an industry which is one of the largest and oldest in the province of Quebec and in the eastern part of Canada, and which, like other industries, has been suffering from lack of markets and possibly from lack of subsidies which may be necessary to develop it in the way it should be developed. True, the provincial government is doing its best to develop that industry, but it has not been able, within the last few years of its administration of fisheries, to develop scientific and technical men, and also to carry on various establishments such as those maintained here in Ottawa in the federal Department of Fisheries, which have been in existence for a good many years, and are about the best on the continent of America.
I think Mr. Speaker, that the resolution should carry because I am not asking anything unreasonable. My request is for further assistance and cooperation from this government. We have been asked to develop certain programs whereby we might help the government through its present financial difficulties. Here is a practical suggestion in which cooperation should not be lacking, should not be refused and should be forthcoming from this government and from my genial friend the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) who was at one time Minister of Fisheries, and who is thoroughly familiar with the matter now before us.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in the ordinary course of events this resolution would have been spoken to by the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) who, I regret to say, is not present this afternoon. Consequently in his absence I feel it incumbent upon me to say a few words in reply. I should have preferred to have had the opportunity of referring to data and materials which I would have had before me, had I known I would be called upon to say a word or two in this connection.
I do not think I can take any marked exception to the resolution, nor to the tenor of the remarks of the hon. member who sponsors it. I wish however in the course of my remarks to take exception to one or two of the statements he has made. The * resolution now before us reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is desirable that the Dominion government should cooperate to a greater extent with the provincial government in order to assist the maritime fisheries in the province of Quebec.

Maritime Fisheries, Quebec
I should have preferred the wording of the resolution to be that the government should cooperate to the ''greatest possible extent,'[DOT] because the wording as it now appears in the resolution might indicate that there had been some lack of cooperation by the federal government in its association with the province of Quebec. In case anyone should be inclined so to interpret this resolution I wish to say at once that such an interpretation cannot properly be held. Especially is my statement true when we bear in mind that at one time the fisheries of the province of Quebec were under the full direction and control of the Department of Fisheries at Ottawa.


William Duff: And they should have stayed there, too.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: And my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) says they should have remained there.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I think so, too.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I concur entirely with my hon. friends opposite in that point of view, and I do not for one moment wish to be understood as finding any fault, much less of attempting to impart any political flavour to this discussion when I say that the reason they are not still under the control of the federal government is that in the judgment of the then Minister of Fisheries, the present hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), Quebec had taken itself out of the control of the federal Department of Fisheries and set up its own house in the matter of fisheries control. My hon. friend who is sponsoring this resolution is familiar with that fact. So when he says that no industry can expand unless wise administration is given to it, in so far as that expression of opinion on his part is applicable to the lack of improvement in the fisheries of the province of Quebec, I must say the responsibility rests entirely with the Department of Fisheries in that province.
Coming back to the terms of the resolution, or that phase of it which would indicate, at least by inference, that there had not been complete cooperation with the dominion Department of Fisheries, let me say to my hon. friend that in my experience in the federal department I know of no instance where there was not complete and, I may say, harmonious and pleasant cooperation with the Department of Fisheries of the province of Quebec. I know of no instance where they sought our assistance and we did not respond. As a matter of fact, my mind goes back to one or two particular instances last year which
would bear out my statement. At that time there came up for consideration with respect to salmon fisheries common to Quebec and the province of New Brunswick, not only the question of season, but the method and the use of the implements incidental to fishing. That is to say, there were considered the size of nets to be used, the manner in which they were to be placed in the water, the length of leaders and all such things. In the city of Ottawa there was held a conference representative of all phases of the fisheries industry. One of the first things we did was to communicate with our friends in the Department of Fisheries of the province of Quebec and ask them to send a representative to the conference. With that request they complied, and we were favoured throughout the whole of the meetings with the presence of Mr. Gibault, representing the Department of Fisheries of the province of Quebec. Decisions arrived at at that time were unanimous, and made possible by complete cooperation between the Department of Fisheries in the province of Quebec and the federal department here in Ottawa.
My hon. friend has referred to that very unique conference held at Matameck on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, which was made possible by a gentleman to whom I think a word of praise might at this time properly be given. He is a distinguished citizen of the United States and has a summer residence near Matameck. Having lived there a number of years during the summer seasons he became very much attached to that area and its people. It was his desire to assist, amongst other things, the fishing industry as well as the. poor people in the vicinity, and arising from that desire he arranged the conference which lasted a week or ten days, and which cost him a large sum of money because he provided transportation and all facilities to the representatives present. He put his services, time and money to the use of the people of Canada, solely with the idea of assisting the people of the province of Quebec.
One of his first acts was to communicate with the department at Ottawa, asking that the department be represented. His communication arrived at a time when the house was in session and for that reason the Deputy Minister of Fisheries could not attend.. Arrangements were made, however, for the attendance of Doctor Huntsman, head of the biological board. During the whole of the conference he attended and represented the federal Department of Fisheries. There was also present Doctor Camsell, deputy minister of the federal Department of Mines.

Maritime Fisheries, Quebec
I have mentioned these facts in passing to indicate to the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) that there has been complete cooperation between the federal and provincial departments. My hon. friend has referred to certain subsidies which he says have been given to the people of the maritime provinces and the people of British Columbia in which the province of Quebec has not participated. I know of none. The only direct subsidy in the fishing industry is the sum of $160,000 voted year after year which arises, as my hon. friend knows, out of the Halifax award.


Mr. NEILL:: No, no.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It does not come out of
the funds of the treasury of Canada-


Alan Webster Neill: It is taken out of the consolidated fund. There is no reference in the act at all to the Halifax award.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend may differ
from me, but I adhere to my statement as originally given, with all due deference to my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill).


William Duff: The United States paid
$4,500,000 to Canada and $1,000,000 to Newfoundland for certain privileges.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, and it is the yield
upon that sum, at a fair interest rate, that has been divided among the fishermen.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Were there any subsidies for the construction of refrigeration plants?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As my hon. friend knows,
I am speaking now without reference to the statute and with no notes before me, but I think he will find upon inquiry that the provisions of that act are applicable to the fishing industry throughout Canada. With reference to the cold storage act, if the fishermen of the province of Quebec wish to avail themselves of the provisions of that statute, it is just as open to them to do so as it is open to the fishermen of any other part of Canada.
My hon. friend has stated that the administration of the fisheries by the dominion costs something like $2,000,000 a year. As a matter of fact, there have been some reductions in the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. Speaking from memory, I think the reduction last year was about $345,000, and this year there has been another reduction of about $80,000, so the total expenditure is really less than $2,000,000. But my hon. friend would leave the impression that all this money was spent in other parts of Canada and not 
in Quebec. In the first place let me say that even if this were so Quebec has only itself to blame. They cannot come here now and take the position that, having eaten their cake, they still want it. They deliberately took themselves out from under the direction and control of the Dominion Department of Fisheries, but in any case it is not so that this entire amount is spent in portions of Canada other than Quebec. It is quite competent for the Quebec Department of Fisheries, for the fishing industry of that province or for individual fishermen there to avail themselves of the services of the federal department. In my own experience I have known many occasions when that has been done.
My hon. friend has referred to the fact that there is a biological station at St. Andrews and another on the Pacific coast, while there is none in the province of Quebec. It does not follow that the work of a biological station is confined to the locality in which the station is located; as a matter of fact, if proper work is done in the field of biology in connection with our fisheries, it can be done as well at St. Andrews as it could be done at any other place on the Atlantic seaboard. The point I wish to make, however, is that the statistics obtained, the results of experiments carried out and all the knowledge gleaned through the expenditure of that money and the work of the scientists, are made available to the people of the province of Quebec just as they are made available to the people of the other provinces. The same thing is true in connection with the engineering branch of the Department of Fisheries. Plans and specifications with respect to the construction of cold storage plants, ships and all the rest of it, together with all the data that has been obtained, are available to the fishermen of all parts of the country, without regard to provinces.
My hon. friend has stated that the federal department provided a fish collection service in the maritime provinces while it did not provide that service in Quebec. I could very well say that Quebec is running its own fisheries and that this matter should be attended to by the government of that province, but I wish to point out to my hon. friend that there was a limited extension of this service to cover a portion of the Nova Scotia coast which did not possess the facilities found in practically all other coast waters of the maritime provinces, Quebec and British Columbia. These facilities consist in the main of local steamship services, and if my hon. friend would take the trouble to look at the

Maritime Fisheries, Quebec
estimates he would find that each year we vote hundreds of thousands of dollars for subsidies and subventions to steamships and packets both on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts in order to provide these services, and the provision of these services has brought about improved transportation facilities so far as the fisheries in Quebec are concerned.
Arising out of the interruption of my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff)-to which I do not take exception-if I might say so with all deference, without wishing to find any fault and without canvassing the ground that has been covered already, I would suggest that his attention might be far better directed towards the return to federal control of the fisheries of the province of Quebec.


William Duff: Especially now that we have
a minister from Quebec.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so. I believe a unified direction of our fisheries is greatly to be desired. If we tried to direct our fisheries by provincial control, each province differing from the other in method, with resultant duplication of service, we would have a tremendously expensive and cumbersome machine, and we would get nowhere in the way of national direction.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I am afraid the
answer from Quebec will be "What we have we hold."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so, but that is purely a matter for our friends in Quebec. My hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough has been very frank in his expression of opinion, and I wish to be equally frank and say that I entirely concur in what he has said. Let me repeat that I know of no case where we have refused to cooperate or to give every assistance within our power and our competence. Just here let me say this: During the time I had the honour of heading the Department of Fisheries it was a matter of great pleasure to me to have some contacts with the fisheries department of the province of Quebec. In every respect our relations were harmonious, cordial, and I hope mutually helpful. As a matter of fact, one of the last acts I performed while head of that department was to conclude an arrangement to provide fish demonstrations, the idea being to enlarge the market for fish by teaching the housewives better methods of preparing them. We employed the services of a lady who is known throughout the continent of North America as one of the foremost exponents of the art of fish cookery, and I
wrote the Minister of Fisheries of Quebec and said I should like him to cooperate with us in that movement. I received a very nice answer; he said he would be very happy to join with us, and to-day the province of Quebec is paying the salary of a lady who was associated with Mrs. Spencer, who is able to demonstrate to the people of that province in the French language. Naturally we started that campaign in Ottawa, but the very next place where the demonstrations were carried on was the city of Montreal. They are being given there to-day, as they have been for some weeks, and I believe this action has brought about good results so far as the industry and the province are concerned. I merely mention that as a concrete example of how we have endeavoured in every possible way to cooperate with the provincial government.
Bearing in mind what I have said, so far as I am concerned I have no objection to this resolution, though as I said in the first instance it might have asked that the government should cooperate to the greatest possible extent, instead of saying that we should cooperate to a greater extent.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain) on bringing this matter before the house. He has done so, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has said, in a very lucid manner and has furnished us with much valuable information. This dual control of our fisheries by the dominion and the province is a very, very old question. When I had the honour in 1897 to be the candidate of the Liberal party in the county of Gaspe, the then premier of the province scored heavily by announcing during the campaign the decision of the privy council to the effect that the fisheries were within the provincial jurisdiction, and that thereafter the province would control them. That practice continued until control reverted to the dominion. In 1922 Quebec again secured jurisdiction over the fisheries. No matter what the position is at the present time, it is not satisfactory. When I had the honour of being elected for the county of Bonaventure thirty years ago, all the coast was lined with fishermen's huts. We had important fisheries at Port Daniel, Gascons, Paspebiac, Bonaventure, and Caplan. The men of these districts earned their livelihood in the fishing industry. For some reason or other the industry has declined and to-day a very small number of men earn their living in that way.
Maritime Fisheries, Quebec

In 1922, the provincial authorities relieved the dominion to a great extent by taking over control of the fisheries. Our fisheries are one of our great natural resources and anything that will develop them in Quebec will be for the benefit of Canada generally. Whatever may be the reason, it is an unfortunate fact that our fisheries in Chaleur bay are not being developed. We have provincial control in certain things and federal control in others. The Minister of Finance has referred to numerous lines of steamers subsidized for the benefit of the maritime provinces to assist in the development of these fisheries. So far as my constituents are concerned we used to have a line between Gaspe and Dalhousie, New Brunswick, but that line was discontinued years ago. The people in my constituency are complaining of the rates they have to pay on the Canadian National railways to gain access to the large markets of Quebec and Montreal. I am not prepared to discuss this phase of the ' question, having only this morning received a copy of the report of the interview that the representatives of the fishermen in the Gaspe district had with the provincial Minister of Fisheries, but from glancing through the long report I conclude that things are not as they should be. The Minister of Finance, who is probably the best-informed man in this house on the question of our fisheries, should make a point of seeing that something be done, because the condition of these fisheries is not what it should be.
I had an opportunity last week of introducing to the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) a deputation from New Brunswick and Quebec with regard to salmonfishing in the Chaleur bay district. There is long-standing dissent between the anglers and the fishermen of our Gaspe salmon. The dominion regulations requiring the raising of nets from Sunday till Monday morning is a great obstacle to the net fishermen. While the Deputy Minister of Fisheries, who is an authority on these matters, contends that it is in the interests of the salmon fishermen themselves that they should get out into the centre of the river, they take objection on the ground that they lose the best runs of the season. Be that as it may, the department has again turned down the request made by the fishermen, and I think a meeting should be arranged as soon as possible between the dominion and the provincial authorities to see if some better understanding cannot be brought about.
The government of Quebec last week took steps towards the establishing of some freezing stations along the coast for the use of the [Mr. Marcil.l
fishermen. At the present time as the member for Charlevoix-Saguenay stated, the fishermen have to salt their fish, thus reducing its value by fifty per cent, and at the same time they find their markets in Brazil, the West Indies and elsewhere have shrunken to a very serious extent. In a word, our fishermen find themselves, in common with our other producers, in the unhappy position of a lack of markets. We have not the markets to-day to be prosperous as we had under the old regime of moderate tariffs. But whatever be the cause of the decline of our fisheries, both the dominion and the provinces are interested in their development and in finding new markets. In Quebec the provincial authorities have control of the fishing regulations at the present time, but when it comes to securing access to markets, cheap transportation and sale abroad we come into the federal domain. Means should be found of preserving the fish, giving cheap transportation, and securing access to foreign markets.
I hope this resolution will meet with the approval of the whole house. I have heard the question discussed many times, but the main trouble seems to be the conflict between provincial and federal control. I agree to some extent with the Minister of Finance that it is highly important that there should be uniform control of all our fisheries. In Montreal, where I have resided all my life, the fish that we eat during the winter comes largely from Maine and the maritime provinces. There is no reason why some understanding should not be arrived at by which our fishermen would be given a better market and increased remuneration for their work. Canada should be one of the first countries in the world as far as the fishing industry is concerned. We have some of the finest fish to be found anywhere. In order that we may get the fullest advantage from this great natural resource it is necessary that the difficulties between the province and the dominion should be arranged on a basis satisfactory to all concerned. I am glad the government has in charge of this department a man who is thoroughly conversant with the subject. The time has come when this question should be considered in earnest with a view to seeing whether we cannot do something to assist our fishermen who are in dire need.
A new factor must be considered in dealing with this question. American fishermen come to the waters of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for sport fishing, and some consideration must be given to these men. They spend a tremendous amount of

Maritime Fisheries, Quebec
money in the pursuit of their sport, and I have -been told that it costs $200 for every salmon taken out of the Restigouche river. They observe the law to the fullest extent, they register every fish taken, and they give every assistance possible. The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mac-Laren) does me the honour of fishing every year -in my constituency. I trust he will be spared for many years to come to continue to enjoy this sport. He is a friend of the fishermen. Sir Douglas Hazen, a very prominent man in the maritime provinces, who was minister of marine and fisheries in the old days, is a frequent visitor to my constituency. On behalf of these men, I urge the dominion government not to turn a deaf ear to this question.
I can remember in the old days seeing the fishermen use dynamite and salt their catch in barrels, employing somewhat the same process as was used in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia with the oyster. The oyster has practically disappeared from Canada, except in Prince Edward Island. The time has come when assistance should be given to the fisherman. His life is a hard one, he leaves early in the morning not knowing when he will return. He has to face all sorts of weather and at times his income is small when compared with his labour. We have dual control over agriculture and mining, we should have similar control over our fisheries. I urge the government through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) and the Minister of Pensions and National Health to take up this question seriously and see if something cannot be done to improve the present condition of our fisheries.


William Gordon Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I rather welcome the opportunity which has been afforded by the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) for a general discussion of the fisheries, but before I proceed to discuss fisheries generally I want to say a word or two with reference to the hon. member's resolution. He confines his resolution to the province of Quebec, and from his closing remarks I gather that one of the motives for his doing this was that other districts were seeking relief and he did not want that relief granted until it was granted to the province of Quebec. I happened to be present with a delegation which waited upon the government with respect to the salt fish industry, with which the hon. member is most particularly concerned, and while they asked aid for their industry, they never at any time
asked aid only for the industry in Nova Scotia. They recognized frankly that any relief must be given equally to the four provinces which engage in this industry.
The hon. member stated that inasmuch as the province of Quebec pays some twenty-five per cent of the revenue of Canada, at least $500,000 should be paid to the province as aid in the development of its fisheries. The first answer to this was given by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) when he stated that the province of Quebec had chosen to administer its own fisheries since 1922, the authority for this being in an order in council which we can safely assume was passed at the solicitation of the province. I remind my hon. friend, but not in a partisan spirit, of the dictum laid down some few years ago by his own leader. The right hon. gentleman stated that he considered it to be a vicious principle that one taxing authority should raise revenue and give it to another taxing authority to spend without any control being held over such expenditures. I think that is a complete answer to any demand for a cash subsidy to be paid to the province of Quebec in aid of its fisheries.
I agree with the hon. member for Antigo-nish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) that it would be in the best interests of the fisheries of the dominion as a whole if the fisheries of the province of Quebec were placed under federal control as are those of the three eastern provinces. When the Minister of Finance made that suggestion the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) interjected the remark "What we have we hold." He might at least have completed the quotation by saying: "What we have not we're after."
Having given my reasons for not being able to support the resolution in the terms in which it appears, I want to say something about the problems which face the industry generally. The problems which face the Gaspe peninsula are the same as those confronting the fishermen along the whole coast of Nova Scotia, especially in my own constituency, which has the largest salt fishing fleet in the world. Before dealing with these problems, let me refer first to the causes thereof. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and the hon. member for Char-levoix-Saguenay have suggested that in some measure tariffs are responsible for the present difficulties. If they mean by that the tariffs of the Dominion of Canada, then I cannot agree; if they mean the tariffs of other countries, I admit that to some extent that is true.
Maritime Fisheries, Quebec

There are three primary reasons for the difficulties which now face the salt fishing industry of the world. First, there is a general world depression which must be faced when you have a product which must be sold in the export market. Second, and accentuating the first in a peculiar manner in so far as the fishing industry is concerned, there is the almost complete collapse of purchasing power in Brazil, one of the largest salt fish importing countries in the world. A similar collapse, perhaps not so great, has taken place in the purchasing power of Spain and Portugal. Third, there is the fact that nearly all the great salt fish producing countries in the world have increased their production. Take for instance, Norway, Iceland, Newfoundland and Great Britain; all of these countries are entering the markets of the world with increasing quantities of fish, and the result is that there are more fish than can be absorbed by the consumer. Practically the only markets left to us are those of the West Indies, Cuba and Porto Rico.
The fishermen in the Gaspe section of the coast have been shipping their product to Spain and Portugal and, to a smaller degree, to Italy, but these markets have been almost completely closed.
This fisherman produces a superior product and he has been accustomed to a superior price. To-day he has to take the same price as all the others are taking in the export markets of the world, a price that is far below the cost of production. Added to all the difficulties of the depression, come those of the exchange situation. As I said, practi-tically the only markets which are left are Cuba, Porto Rico and the West Indian islands, and when we do business with those countries, all the exchange comes through New York. The exchange rate in regard to both the Canadian dollar and the pound sterling has been most uncertain, it fluctuates from day to day, and I think I may safely mention that the lowering in value of the pound sterling due to the action of Britain in going off the gold standard, which placed the pound at a lower value than the Canadian dollar, has given to the English exporter an advantage of from 20 to 25 per cent. 1 realize the difficulties of the exchange situation and I am not expressing anything but a personal view, but I am by no means anxious to see the Canadian dollar get back to par too quickly.


Mr COOTE:: Par with what?


William Gordon Ernst: With the United States dollar.


Mr. COOTE:: Then the Canadian fishermen will get less.


William Gordon Ernst: No. These are fluctuations which do not affect the Canadian dollar internally but do affect our ability to sell abroad. Some of these things will right themselves, and if we have any faith in the future we must feel that they are going to do so in the course of time. Broadly, we see the natural reaction in that some of the great exporting countries are curtailing the production this year, so that we look forward with some hope towards increased prices next year. For the present year, however, our difficulty is apparent and real.
Having said that about the condition of the industry in general, because the industry in Gaspe in connection with salt and pickled fish is similar to that in Lunenburg, I should like to say to the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay that when he suggests that the remedy for his fishermen is that they handle fresh fish, he is speaking only a partial truth in the economic sense. Again I am voicing only a personal opinion. It seems to me that one of the most tragic blunders we made in the administration of the fisheries of this country was to endeavour to turn the individual fishermen scattered along thousands of miles of coast line into dealers in fresh fish. This cannot be done. Fresh fish is an extremely perishable product. It has to be taken quickly to the cold storage or else it deteriorates, and when it deteriorates it is no longer fresh. In Nova Scotia, by a system of collection boats, we have endeavoured to turn the entire coastline into the fresh fish industry, but this has proved altogether uneconomic and unsound and I believe it will prove equally so in the Gaspe peninsula. In my opinion, the remedy does not lie there; it lies in teaching our fishermen improved methods of conserving and curing. I am not satisfied that the salt fish, as we know it to-day, represents the ultimate in the production of cured fish at home by the individual fisherman. I am convinced research will show that much more can be done and that a much better quality of fresh and cured fish can be placed on the market by the individual fisherman working from his own fish house, than is being done at the present time, even in the Gaspe peninsula, where they have, as I have said, a superior type of salt fish.
Having said that and having tried to make it clear that the problems of the Gaspe peninsula are those of Nova Scotia, of Lunenburg county, let me say that I concur in the statement of the hon. member for Bonaven-ture (Mr. Marcil) that the fisherman to-day i3 in a really pitiable condition. I am talking now of the salt fisherman. Some of the fresh

Maritime Fisheries, Quebec
fish industries are operating almost to capacity, but in those the fisherman receives only a pittance for that which he brings to port. But I pass over the fresh fish industry, because the two cannot be confused; each offers a different field for investigation and a different line for development. Further, with reference to the fresh fish industry in eastern Canada-and I am making no reference to British Columbia because I do not know anything about the fishing industry there-we sell a very substantial proportion of our catch in the home market where we are not subjected to the fluctuations of the export price and world conditions. The salt fish industry is entirely different.
Let me come now to my own constituency of Lunenburg. Some few years ago we had 120 vessels which operated out of that port, and at that time they were propelled mainly by sail. They carried crews of from twenty to twenty-five men. The method of fishing was that the men went two by two over the sides in dories and fished writh lines or trawl lines, which are long lines baited at intervals. When they got their catch they took it back to the mother ship, where it was salted, and eventually when the season expired or the vessel became loaded, she would return to port. A hundred vessels at that time meant direct employment to between 2,000 and 3,000 men. In fact, it meant something more than that: it meant indirect employment to thousands more, because when the fish were brought back they had to be cured; that is, they were brought back green salted and had to be washed and dried in the sun. That gave work for a portion of the year to a large number of people scattered along the coastline of the county. Then there were the shipyards, because the vessels in which our people fished were built in our own shipyards, using our own lumber, timber and materials so far as they were available. We imported cordage and canvas and the ironwork was largely fashioned by local blacksmiths. I can think of six such shipyards in Lunenburg county alone and an average annual pay-roll for one of them would be about $50,000, with another $50,000 spent in the same year on materials. That is an average year. To-day every one of those shipyards, with one exception, and that one is not building a fishing vessel, is closed.
Furthermore, the fish were exported in casks which were made of hardwood staves from trees which were cut locally by local labour and made in local cooperages. Speaking from memory, I believe there are a large number of them scattered throughout my constituency. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-borough (Mr. Duff), who has just come in, is thoroughly familiar with this because he has been in the salt fish trade all his life. A fair
average payroll for one of these cooperages would be from $10,000 to $15,000 a year, with material taking a like amount. Those cooperages are in a large measure closed down. The men who pack the fish, who work on the wharves, the docks, have practically lost their livelihood, and the fleet which was once 100 strong was last year down to forty-two. This year, if conditions remain as they are and without some measure of governmental assistance, I do not believe ten Lunenburg vessels will go to the banks to catch salt fish.
The method of operation has changed. Sail is giving way by degrees to the Diesel engine, but 'basically our fishermen still catch their fish, salt them and bring them in. What is the outcome unless we obtain relief? It must be the destruction of that industry. I have heard it argued by many that the farmer is in a like position. He is, and he is not. A farm is not perishable. A farmer may lose it, it is true, by a process of foreclosure, but it still remains a farm capable of production as it always was. A vessel property is perishable. The average situation of the vessels of the Lunenburg fleet is this: they are operated largely under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. Each vessel is divided into sixty-four shares, and under the act one man will act as manager, owner or agent for the rest. The crew and the owner work on a share basis or on a kind of partnership scheme or venture. Each year, when a vessel goes out, the managing owner advances the money or guarantees an advance by the bank to outfit it for the voyage that year at a cost of $4,000 or $5,000. In former days when commodity prices were higher, the amount would be greater. He trusts to the success of the venture in the sale of fish to recoup himself for his advance, but for the last two years he has not been able to recoup himself, and nearly every vessel fishing out of Lunenburg is in debt from three thousand dollars up to eight thousand dollars, and some for much more than that. That may not seem a staggering amount when you remember that the vessels cost from twenty-five to thirty thousand dollars, but if you try to sell those vessels to-day and on the auction block they bring approximately only $3,000. There is no demand for them; no one wants them, and the result is that the managing owners cannot advance any more money to operate them, and the banks will not and cannot be expected to advance any more money to operate these
Maritime Fisheries, Quebec

vessels this year. If they cease to operate for one year, their markets are gone, or if their debts are not paid the vessels will pass from ownership in the constituency that I represent, and the fleet which has been built up over a period of nearly a century and a half will cease to exist; and the present method of livelihood of approximately half the people who live in the county of Lunenburg will be rendered impossible. Having said that, and it .applies, if not in equal measure, to a greater or less extent, to the fishermen all along the coast of Nova Scotia, whether they operate in boats or vessels, and it is true also of the fishermen of New Brunswick and of the salt fishermen in the Gaspe peninsula, what do we suggest as a remedy?
My hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) did me the honour of quoting from a speech I made in Montreal some time ago, and he invited me to state what we have to suggest as a remedy. At the time that speech was made I was aware that a delegation was waiting on the government at Ottawa, a non-partisan delegation, including among its members my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), asking for certain remedies, and I did not feel that I was at liberty to reveal those remedies until such time as they had been presented to the Prime Minister and his colleagues; but now that they have been presented and are public property I do so without hesitation.
The first remedy asked for was a bonus.
I know that my free trade friends will say that bonusing is unsound. I am not enamoured of the idea of a bonus if I could think of any other method. It is only as a measure of temporary and immediate relief, and if any other method could be suggested I should be glad to consider it, but I have had the opportunity of collaborating with those vitally interested in this industry in my constituency, with men on both sides of politics with whom I have sat in round table conference to discuss the situation and endeavour to find a remedy, and we have not been able to devise any other method. It is purely a temporary expedient, but unless we do get a bonus the paralysis which threatens will grip that fleet and the livelihood of half the people of Lunenburg county will be gone. So I urge the remedy of a bonus for the favourable consideration of the Minister of Finance, and when I ask him for it, I ask the house to remember that we do not ask it for Lunenburg alone, because we quite recognize that what we get must be given to all fishermen similarly situated. But we do ask it because we feel that in no other way can
[Mr. Ernst.)
our industry be saved. It is purely a temporary expedient. To say that the salt fishing industry cannot and will not recuperate is equivalent to losing one's hope and faith in the future so far as the economics of the situation is concerned, and if we are going to face the future in a spirit of hopelessness generally, we might all just as well throw up our hands. But on the contrary, if we look forward to improving conditions, we see no injustice in asking this country for this temporary relief to tide us over this particular time because never in the 150 years of the existence of the industry have we asked anything similar before.
Having suggested a bounty, I come to the second remedy which we propose, and that is trade treaties. We realize that trade treaties cannot offer us any immediate relief, but they can offer us relief for the future. I might be asked, trade treaties with whom. I answer quite frankly, with any country in the world that is willing to take our fish. Again I give you my personal view and the viewpoint of my own constituency; we would say a trade treaty with Cuba. I know the difficulties which present themselves in that connection, the difficulties of the British West Indies treaty, because once you start to negotiate with Cuba immediately you will be told that you cannot negotiate unless you give Cuba a preference on sugar, and you cannot give Cuba a preference on sugar because of the British West Indies treaty. But I say to this house that as far as the maritime provinces are concerned, and I am speaking now not only of the fishing industry but of the potato industry as well, a treaty with Cuba would do more to rejuvenate those provinces than a treaty with any other single country in the world. Porto Rico, of course, does not offer the same opportunities because her tariffs are controlled wholly by the United States. We may be able to do something to help ourselves at the forthcoming Imperial conference, but we must remember that amongst our competitors with whom we shall have to deal are Newfoundland and the British Isles themselves, and what we get, of course, they must get. But even narrowing the field down to that extent would be of material assistance to us. As I said at the outset, trade treaties with almost any salt fish consuming country in the world are desirable to us.
Now I come to the last remedy which I suggest, and that is that we should get, even if it is only within the empire, some stabilization of currency. I am giving purely my own personal view and looking at the problem

Maritime Fisheries, Quebec
wholly from my own standpoint and that of my constituency, but from the standpoint of my constituency, which is an exporter, we are by no means eager to bring the Canadian dollar back to par in terms of the American dollar bill. We do, however, want some stability of exchange, because with exchange fluctuating we cannot sell at thirty or ninety days not knowing what we are going to get at the end of that period. This instability makes it almost impossible to do business.
There is nothing further I want to add except this, and again I voice a purely personal view. Coming from Nova Scotia I realize that we cannot for some years to come, in any event, become a highly industrialized community. This is an age of hydroelectric power, and hydro-electric power so far as it is available to us is available only in comparatively small quantities as compared with many of the other provinces of Canada. Until we can get cheap electricity, we cannot become highly industrialized. On the other hand, we do not want to lose sight of the fact that we desire to become industrialized because by no other means can we hope to take care of the natural increase of our population, but until that time comes the industries on which we have to rely are the basic industries-our coal mines, fisheries, farming, and to a lesser extent our timber resources-and anything that can be done to help those industries helps to keep Nova Scotia alive. Personally I look forward to the day, and I do not think it is very far distant, when we shall be able to utilize our coal to produce electric power cheaper than it can be produced from the great rivers of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, but until that day comes I feel it my duty as one who was born and bred in a constituency in the province of Nova Scotia to press the interests of the greatest basic industry that I have in my constituency, and one which employs in the maritime provinces as many people as the coal and steel industries combined. We only ask the government to give us that fair consideration which they give to other provinces and other industries throughout the dominion.


Pierre-François Casgrain: May I ask one question with regard to the remedy of a bonus which my hon. friend mentioned? What form would that bonus take? Would it be a bonus to each individual fisherman dependent upon the size of the catch?


William Gordon Ernst: WTith your permission, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion as to a bonus was a per quintal bonus to each fisherman on his production.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise, Mr. Speaker, merely to corroborate the interruption I made when the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) was speaking. Although this is a very burning subject with the province of British Columbia' I had not intended to speak to it at the present time for fear in some measure I might divert the lino of argument of the hon. member who introduced the motion. However, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has made certain comments in this debate I feel compelled, on behalf of the province of British Columbia- with which province I now find the province of Quebec should also be associated-to raise once more my voice, even if it be a feeble and. fluttering one, in support of the rights of our province.
I think I might best size up the situation by quoting some remarks I made on June 2,, 1928.
The act-
Under which this grant,-not a bonus, I would emphasize-is made-
-is now chapter 74 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, and it is called the Deep Sea Fisheries Act. It was passed in 1882-
That is 50 years ago.	.
-what did the act do? It provided that an annual grant-
I wish the house to note that word.
-not a bounty, a grant, of $160,000 a year be paid. Where was that grant obtained? By looking at section 2 we find that it is to be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
Mark that, Mr. Speaker.
This was not some ear-marked fund set aside, but the money was to be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. What was to be done with it? I again quote section 2.. It was to be used:	.
"To aid in the development of the sea fisheries of Canada, and the encouragement of the building and fitting out of improved fishing vessels, and the improvement of the conditions of the fishermen."
That is the fishermen of Canada.
May I say that Canada is a large country and takes in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic. The quotation from Hansard of my remarks continues as follows:
The act under section 7 took power to make regulations as follows: "The governor in council may, from time to time, make such regulations as he deems necessary or expedient respecting the payment of the said grant and the manner in which applications for the same or any portion thereof shall be made."
I would ask hon. members to note that the word "grant" is used, not "bonus". My remarks continue:
It is just the regular phraseology that allows the minister to make regulations for the carry-
Ufaritime Fisheries, Quebec

ing out of the act. But it is an axiom of law . . . that parliament can give power to a minister to make regulations under an act, but those regulations must always be merely in an administrative capacity for carrying out the act. They are confined entirely to the administration of what is in the act. It is absolutely ultra vires and impossible for parliament to confer, and it never does confer by an act of that kind, legislative powers on a minister; that is to say, he cannot under those regulations go out and make legislation or change the legislation concerning which he is authorized to make regulations.
Then my remarks continue in a later paragraph ;
But what the minister did in this case under the regulations was practically the same as if he had made a new act. He might as well have said that this money should be given for the production of cabbages or sheep or something of that kind because, by means of regulation, he changed the whole spirit and intent of the act. I am not speaking about the present minister, of course, because this thing has been going on for-
Fifty years.
By provisions made under the regulations the act was confined practically entirely to the maritime provinces and particularly Nova Scotia. They dared not do this in so many words . . . but they introduced, in connection with the application, language which practically confined the act to Nova Scotia.
And then I go on to an explanation which at this time I need not read. Then, later in my speech I find the following;
In addition to the provision against participation by those engaged in salmon fishing it did not even allow British Columbia fishermen to qualify where they were engaged in cod or herring fishing. In other words they said indirectly what they could not and dared not say directly, namely, that British Columbia- [DOT]
And now, Quebecr-should not participate in this grant which was announced to be entirely for the development of the deep sea fisheries of Canada.
Then I asked the question what they had done with this money, and the answer was:
As the bounty is based on the interest on Canada's share of the award made under the fishery articles of the treaty of Washington, 1871, and as the said articles apply to the Atlantic coast only, the payment is restricted to that coast.
Then my remarks continue;
That is a very nice answer if you want to believe it, but you do not have to. In the first place it is a grant, not a bounty, and it is so specified in the act. I am not talking about what happened in 1871; I am talking about the act which was passed in 1882.
While I say 1871 was the date of the Washington treaty, the award was not made until 1878. Then my remarks continue:
We have nothing to do with the intention or what somebody thought or did not think- 
When the act was passed.
-we have simply the act to bind us. I have a letter from an official of the department making a very valiant and desperate attempt to justify the action of the government in years past. He writes in part: "The fishing bounty -" I object to the word "bounty"-"grew out of the award of the Halifax commission, which was made under the provisions of the Washington treaty of 1871."
And so on. That treaty was concerned with disputes between Canada and United States in connection with certain fishing rights. To make a long story short, Canada sold certain privileges to the United States for $4,500,000. In other words they sold a little bit of Canada, a little bit of the rights to which the industrial worker in Toronto, the fisherman in British Columbia, as well as myself, are entitled. They received $4,500,000 for those rights. What did they do with it? They put it into the consolidated revenue fund; nothing can be more certain than that. There were no restrictions, no reservations, no strings to it at all. That was in the year 1878, and nothing happened until the year 1882. At that time the Deep Sea Fisheries Act was passed which says that they would take $160,000 out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada and use it for the development of deep sea fisheries. There is no reference made nor is there any connection whatsoever with the transaction which occurred four years before.
I could point out an analagous situation in the province of British Columbia where the American government paid the government of Canada a large sum of money for relinquishing pelagic sealing on the Pacific. What was done in that case? Those moneys were paid into the consolidated revenue fund of Canada as they should have been, because Canada's rights had been affected.
I know this is a painful subject to Nova Scotia representatives, and nothing but the extreme righteousness of my cause makes me bring it forward. I know this matter is an unpopular theme in the house. We realize however that a matter is never settled until it is settled right. I hope I may live to see the day when the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) will, like Saul of Tarsus see a great light, and rise in their places and say, in the words of the Prodigal Son, "Mr. Speaker, we have sinned and done wrong." I hope they will be content to surrender our share of this money which, to put it mildly, they have 'been retaining all these years.
We in British Columbia are not going to be finicky about the situation. We are not going

Maritime Fisheries, Quebec
to say, "Give us back all the money of which you have robbed us all these years." We will make a grand gesture and say, "Keep your ill-gotten gains, but let us in future participate in the moneys which were undoubtedly dedicated by the parliament of Canada to the development of the deep sea fisheries of Canada, and not to only one small section of the fishing industry." Commission after commission has dealt with this matter and has recommended that the distribution as at present made should be done away with; the money is wasted. It is doled out in little dabs, little amounts whereby one man gets SS and another man $4.25, and so on. It is a perfect farce. As commission after commission has reported, it is a perfect farce to think that by such methods the deep sea fisheries of Canada can be developed. I think a part of the sum goes to the lobster fishermen.
Mr. DUFF; No, not one dollar.


Peter John Veniot: No.


Alan Webster Neill: Not in the province of Nova Scotia?


William Duff: No.


Alan Webster Neill: Very well, I shall take that statement back. I know that not one cent goes to the deep sea fisheries on the Pacific coast.
I should not have brought up this subject which is so painful to my hon. friends opposite had it not been for the assertion made by the Minister of Finance who, by the way, 1 believe comes from the maritime provinces. I do not think however that will affect his sane judgment at this time, when he has had his attention called to actual facts. I think he will agree that this act ought to be dedicated to the purpose for which it was intended, namely the development of the deep sea fisheries of all Canada. The provinces of Quebec and British Columbia should have a share in it.


Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: There are few members in this house, Mr. Speaker, to whom I listen with greater pleasure than the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. Usually he has the wrong end of the argument, but since he first brought up this matter in 1928 he has been, I might almost say, obstinate in refusing to see this question in its proper light. He appears to have an obsession with regard to this question of the fish bounties, and perhaps for the information of the house it would be well to clear up this matter and find out exactly what the bounty amounts to.
In 1871 the treaty of Washington was agreed upon by Great Britain and United States, and by article 18 of that treaty the fishermen of the United States were given liberty to exercise certain rights in the waters of the coast of the maritime provinces, Quebec and Newfoundland, while equal rights were given our fishermen with regard to United States waters. At that time there was no question of British Columbia or any other place; the question was as to the relative value of the rights which were given. To determine what those rights were worth a commission sat in Halifax.


William Duff: Have you the names of the commissioners?


Finlay MacDonald: I
have not the names here, but most of us remember that one commissioner came from St. John, one from Quebec, one from Prince Edward Island-Sir Louis Davies-and one from Nova Scotia, I think five in all. At all events, as a result of their investigation compensation was fixed at 85,500,000, which was to be paid by the government of the United States to the government of Great Britain. This amount was not paid until January, 1879. Later the British government paid $1,000,000 of the award to Newfoundland and $4,500,000 to the government of Canada.
The amount paid to this country, as the hon. member stated, was put in the consolidated revenue fund, and subsequent to the payment of that amount the claim was advanced by the fishermen of the Atlantic coast that this amount should not be regarded as consolidated revenue but that at least the annual interest on the award should be specifically devoted to the development of the Atlantic coast fisheries. Thus it was determined that the difference in the value of the rights given the fishermen of both countries was $5,500,000. The report to which I am referring goes on to say that it is to be regretted that the legislation empowering the governor in council to authorize the annual grant of $160,000 does not in specific terms state that this amount is for the benefit of the Atlantic coast fisheries. I am referring to the report of the royal commission investigating the fisheries of the maritime provinces.


Alan Webster Neill: Of what year?
Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South); The report was issued in 1927. I agree with my hon. friend that this amount never should have been placed in the consolidated revenue fund.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, it should.
Maritime Fisheries, Quebec


Finlay MacDonald: 
Mr. CASGBAIN:: Are there not certain
conditions imposed before this bounty is paid?
Mr. MacDONALD KCape Breton): The bounty is regulated according to the catch, and so on.


William Duff: And the time they are engaged in fishing.


Alan Webster Neill: And the size of the boat, and so on.


Finlay MacDonald: In any case, that procedure has been followed through all the years, and now it is too late for my hon. friend to try to claim a share of that money. I quite agree that the wrong method was taken at that time; the money should have been placed in a trust fund, but the unfortunate thing is that this was not done, and the mistake made at that time has afforded my hon. friend several opportunities to bring forward this claim on behalf of his province.


Alan Webster Neill: Hear, hear.


William Duff: Is it not a fact that the
German reparations payments to this country go into the consolidated fund, just as this money went into it?


Finlay MacDonald: Yes, in the same way.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, but the German reparations payments did not disappear for four years, as this money did.


Finlay MacDonald: The point I am making is that this money must be regarded by any government as a trust fund to be used for certain purposes. Possibly the time has come when this whole matter should be reconsidered. I am not at all convinced that this payment of bounties is the best way to use this money. I am particularly interested in boat fishermen; I differ with my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst), who is interested in large vessels. My constituents are all poor men along the fringe of the Cape Breton coast; they are all boat fishermen, and they all receive this bounty, which is graded accord-

ing to the size of the boat, the number of men working, the amount of fish caught, and so on. For years this industry has been declining; the fishermen are getting poorer, and in many cases they are leaving their homes. In this report of 1927 the statement is made that the fishing villages along the coast are growing fewer and smaller year by year. That should not be so. Within ten or twelve miles of the coast of Nova Scotia we have the richest fishing area in the world, with enough fish to feed Europe and Canada. We see that industry declining year by year and the fishermen becoming poorer and poorer. It is simply a statement of fact that past governments, Liberal and Conservative, did not have their eyes open to the value of this great natural resource.


William Duff: Hear, hear.


Finlay MacDonald: Even
under present depressed conditions we find eighteen or twenty million dollars a year derived from these fisheries, but unfortunately the industry is declining and the fishing boats are rotting on the shore. Surely with such a great natural resource placed in the hands of our people we should be sufficiently alive to its importance to take the necessary steps to develop it along sound lines.
What is the cure for the present unsatisfactory condition of our fishing industry? Every person who has given the matter the slightest consideration knows that something must be done or the industry will perish. Our fishermen must be given leadership and asistance to equip themselves with boats and nets in order that they may be encouraged to carry on their hazardous calling. Curing plants should be established and transportation facilities provided. This government and the preceding administration have given some attention to providing subsidies for boats and other assistance. But last and possibly most important of all is the necessity of educating cur people to the value of fish as a food. The people of Ontario and the west do not know anything of the food value of fish. Since I have been in Ottawa only on one or two occasions have I had the pleasure of partaking of fish fit to eat. Of course, the people of these parts have no opportunity of judging just how good fish is as a diet. I hope my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins) will not be offended if I tell him that a good, well-cOoked fish is far preferable to the best piece of western beef that ever came off the prairies. The great problem, as I view it, is to instruct the people of Canada as to the food value of good fish. The second

Maritime Fisheries, Quebec
problem has to do with putting the fish on their tables. Some work along that line is being done at the present time. Before we talk about securing markets for our fish in other countries, I believe with a proper system of transportation and a proper realization of the food value of fish there is a market in Canada alone for many millions of pounds of this commodity, a market that would be sufficient to place the fishermen of the maritime provinces on their feet and make them prosperous and happy. But to-day it is necessary to begin from the ground up and educate our people to the importance and value of fish in their daily diet.
Now, with regard to the resolution itself, I have no quarrel with it at all. I am in favour of it.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Thank you.


Finlay MacDonald: But
T want the resolution broadened out; it should not be confined to the province of Quebec alone. Quebec is in the same category as the maritime provinces. We have this great wealth of fisheries on our Atlantic coast, extending from the St. Lawrence down to Cape Breton and all around Nova Scotia. It is a lamentable fact that in the past those in authority in this country have not realized the value of these fisheries, but it is to be hoped that now the matter has been brought to the attention of the government they will regard it not as a party question at all, but as a national question, and will take such action as will tend properly to develop one of the most important of the natural resources of Canada, -the fisheries of the maritime provinces.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, as this discussion has taken more or less of a general trend, and the question of bounties has been brought up, I desire to bring one phase of it to the attention of the house. I regret that neither the acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) nor the former minister of the department (Mr. Rhodes) is in his seat. Possibly members have noticed through the press that there is a strong agitation among the Maine fishermen to place an embargo on the importation of live lobsters into the United States. One of the reasons for the agitation is the very question that we have been discussing this afternoon. They say the fishermen of Canada are subsidized, and that therefore the American fishermen cannot compete with them. I take strong exception to the statement, for I think I am correct in saying that the lobster fishermen of the maritime provinces, especially Prince 41761-83
Edward Island, are not subsidized in any shape or form and do not qualify for the bounty which is paid under the fisheries award. If I am not correct I should like to be put right.


William Duff: That is right.
Mr. VENIOT. That is right.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I am quite certain that individual lobster fishermen cannot qualify for any bounty, consequently our friends across the border are wrong in the stand they are taking. Recently two bills have been introduced in the Senate of the United States and have received strong support. Their purpose is to impose an embargo on lobsters under ten and a half inches. At the present time our fishermen are allowed to ship into the United States live lobsters measuring nine inches in length. The American fishermen are not allowed to ship in lobsters under ten and a half inches in length. Now they are asking that an embargo be imposed against Canadian lobsters and that the requirement as to size apply to all lobsters offered for sale in the United States, namely 10J inches. I have in my hand a press report in which it is stated:
We are not seeking to keep out Canadian lobsters. Canada can ship all she wants to if she'll follow the proper conservation practices and ship in lobsters of the proper length. Canada subsidized lobster fishermen and their competition had cut prices.
I want to direct the attention of the Department of Fisheries to how seriously such an embargo would affect the lobster fishermen of the maritime provinces. I do hope the minister will take cognizance of what is going on and endeavour to present the facts of the case to the United States Department of Fisheries, because it is absolutely unfair that our fishermen should be treated in this way when our friends across the border are labouring under such a misapprehension of the facts. A few days ago I wrote to the United States authorities. This letter, which was addressed to the Department of Fisheries, Washington, and dated March 16, reads:
Sometime ago newspaper reports stated that the United States government intended putting a duty on live lobsters going into the United States market but recently I have not seen anything in connection with this matter.
Will you kindly let me know if any action has been taken regarding it and at what stage such legislation, if any, is at the present time.
The reply, dated March 18, reads:
Dear Sir:
In reply to your letter of March 16, it is presumed that the newspaper reports mentioned may have referred to bills introduced by Senator White (S. 2370) and Congressman

Maritime Fisheries, Quebec

Nelson (H. R. 6586), of Maine which would have prohibited the importation of lobsters less than 101 inches in length which accords with the legal restrictions in the State of Maine. So far as the bureau is aware, neither of these bills have ever been reported out of committee.
Very truly yours,
Lewis Radcliffe,
Acting Commissioner.
It would appear that these bills have not yet come before the house, but are still before the committee. Under date of March 19, I replied as follows:
Your letter received and I wish to thank you for the information contained in same.
By the newspaper reports it would appear that your department is under the impression that our Canadian lobster fishermen are subsidized by the government. This is not quite correct as any fishing bounty given in Canada goes to line fishermen and lobster fishermen alone cannot qualify for the bounty, so that this argument cannot be used.
As I said before, I should like to see the government take up this matter in a departmental way and advise our friends across the border that the lobster fisherman of the maritime provinces is not subsidized, and that this should not be used as an argument for the putting on of an embargo or restriction such as has been suggested. Possibly the former Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes), who is now in his seat, may have some further information on this matter. I know it will be welcomed by the house and by the fishermen of the maritime provinces.


Mr. G. M. McDADE (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the observations of the last speaker and also with the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald):	I come from the Miramichi district, and unquestionably this river is the greatest salmon fishing river in the *world, as to quality, and second only to the Pacific coast, as to quantity. I should like to speak very briefly in connection with a problem which is of vital importance to the salmon fishermen in this river.
We welcome the American angler to Canadian waters and appreciate the money expended in the payment of guides, the opening up of camps, and the purchase of supplies, but unfortunately at the present time there obtains in certain quarters in New Brunswick the impression that commercial fishing on the Miramichi should be curtailed if not entirely eliminated. Last year I had the pleasure of attending a representative gathering of the various fishing interests held in Chatham, where the Deputy Minister of Fisheries explained the desire of his department that the several interests should cooperate for the
(Mr. MacLean.]
good of this great fishing industry. Unfortunately, conflict exists between the American angler and the set-net men, the anchor men and the drifters, but it is the policy of the department, as enunciated by the deputy minister, to endeavour to arrive at some common ground so that this great asset on the Atlantic can be protected and conserved for the common good.
As I said before, the curtailment of the commercial fishing is being agitated. I think this agitation is being inspired by eminent legal counsel who have seen fit to accept retainers from our American friends to advance the cause of the American angler as opposed to that of the set-net men and drifters. I submit that the interests of the Canadian people are paramount and that there should be no undue interference with the liberties which they have enjoyed from time immemorial. I submit also that the commercial fisherman should cooperate to a reasonable extent with the angler; he should realize the immeasurable benefit which accrues to other sections of the country from the investments of our American friends. I might mention that the Hon. Mr. Justice Maclean, as chairman of the royal commission in 1928, did not make any recommendation as to the curtailment of driftnets. The situation is so serious to our people that in these days of economic distress I submit that any change contemplated should be deferred, at least, until times improve, which we trust will not be in the very distant future.
I am heartily in sympathy with the hon. member who has submitted this resolution to the house for its consideration, but I would have preferred had its principles been extended to the maritime provinces. I realize the absolute need at the present time for economy and that subsidies to our fishermen would of necessity involve a large financial outlay. But the situation is serious, and, consistent with the need for economy in all departments of the public service, I appeal to the administration to consider seriously the representations which have been made and to grant them as far as the finances of the country will permit.
While I am on my feet I should like to refer briefly to the earnest plea which has been made by the fishermen of the Miramichi for a system of cooperative marketing and the provision of adequate cold storage facilities.
May I add that the situation facing the driftnet fishermen of the Miramichi is a vital one. This industry employs a large number of people who have no other possible means

Maritime Fisheries, Quebec
of earning a livelihood. We welcome the American to Canada, but I submit, with all due deference to my good friends of the bar who have accepted large retainers, that this is not the time to curtail seriously the liberties of our people. The various interests, including the American angler, should be able to find some common ground upon which to work for the good of the public generally.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member referred
only to the Miramichi river; does he not mean the bay as well?


George Manning McDade: I was referring particularly to the river, but my remarks would apply equally to the counties of Gloucester and Kent.


Peter John Veniot: I was afraid the wrong
impression might be given by referring only to the river.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, I am not going to
speak at great length, but I have a few words to say on this matter on behalf of my constituents. First of all, the fish should belong to the people who live along the rivers and streams, to be used for their food, the surplus to be sold on the outside market for the use of people who live at a distance from those rivers and streams. In my constituency, which is fairly large, there are at least 150 lakes and many streams and rivers. I congratulate the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) on his excellent move in directing the attention of the house to the fisheries of this country and more particularly of the province of Quebec. I am sorry to say that the most important lakes and streams of my constituency have been rented to United States citizens through the influence of a legislative councillor, whom I shall not name but whom everyone will recognize, and who by some unknown means has been able to secure leases of those lakes and streams on behalf of foreigners. In fact, last winter at least thirty people, who were not fishing but hunting on the grounds of those landlords, were arrested and had to spend thirty days in gaol.
My idea about fisheries is that, first of all, the people of any particular province should benefit from its own natural resources. I do not know what the conditions are in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and British Columbia, but in Quebec the fishing industry is a real one. I contend that it should be enjoyed by the citizens of that province, and it is on their behalf that I suggest that the Minister 41761-834
of Fisheries, in case he takes the matter up with the provincial government, see to it that all the leases that have been secured through the influence of that legislative councillor, who was elected a long time ago but who is no longer elected by the people, be cancelled, and that orders be given that in future no recommendation be accepted from him on behalf of any United States or other foreign citizen for the enjoyment of the exclusive privilege of fishing in our territory.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is the hon. member not
aware that the question he raises is one solely within the purview of the province of Quebec?


Jean-François Pouliot: I understand that very
well, but what I say is directly connected with fisheries. I am discussing broadly the question of fisheries, especially as it concerns my constituency. I am not asking the federal parliament to enact any legislation in that regard; I am merely suggesting this to the Minister of Fisheries who I am sorry, is not present. Is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) acting as Minister of Fisheries? I am sorry that when we are discussing such important legislation the Acting Minister of Fisheries is not in his place. My good friend the Minister of Finance, however, has been kind enough to listen to my remarks, and I suggest to him that the next time he meets the Acting Minister of Fisheries in council, he give him my suggestion if he is dealing with the provincial government in regard to the matter of fisheries.


Pierre-François Casgrain: May I interrupt my hon. friend? The Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) is not present, it is true, through no fault of his own. I hold no brief for him, but I understand there has been some bereavement in his family and that is the reason he is not here.


Jean-François Pouliot: I offer my apologies.
Under those circumstances he is not to blame; but I shall explain the matter to him personally and relieve the Minister of Finance of that burden.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It will be a pleasure.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister very much, but let me say to him in all earnestness, I shall be delighted if he will be disposed to talk the matter over with the provincial authorities when he meets them. Probably they are not aware of the situation and it should be brought to their attention. I am sure that as soon as the fact is disclosed to
Maritime Fisheries, Quebec

them, they will immediately see to it that the lease's are cancelled, that the people who live along those wonderful streams and lakes have their rights restored to them, so that in future there will be no such reason to complain. This is why I should be glad if the hon. gentleman would say a word in support of the matter. I am sure his wonderful smile shows that he has been convinced.


Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful indeed to the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), first of all for having brought up a very interesting question for discussion, and, second, for having informed the house that the absence of the Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) is due to a very sad bereavement in his family. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this morning he was obliged to attend the funeral of a brother to the late Hon. Rodolphe Monty, who was at one time a prominent figure in this house and member of this party.
Before attempting to comment on the resolution submitted to the house by my hon. friend, may I tell him I am rather surprised that he has waited such a long time before asking the federal government to cooperate with the provincial authorities in an endeavour to alleviate the sad situation which confronts the fishermen of Quebec. I am afraid I shall have to crave the indulgence of the house for being obliged to pass in review some of the judgments delivered by the privy council in reference to the question of fisheries.
Before 1922, as it is well known, the federal government was administering the fisheries in Quebec as it does now for the maritime provinces and British Columbia. Under the British North America Act "sea coast and inland fisheries" are, by inclusion in article 12, placed under the jurisdiction of the federal government. No difficulty arose about fisheries between the federal government and the provinces "until about 1882, when the federal government undertook to lease salmon angling privileges in non-tidal rivers in New Brunswick." The privy council held in the famous case of Robertson vs. the Queen that in nontidal waters, the fisheries did not come under the legislative power of the federal government, "but remained the property of the riparian owners."
Following the above decision, the provinces claimed that they had jurisdiction in tidal waters as well, and it was agreed upon between the federal and provincial governments to submit for decision a stated case to the supreme court and finally to the privy council. Lord Haldane, in delivering the judgment of the

lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on November 30, 1920, in the case of the Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada against the Attorney General for the province of Quebec, gave a very comprehensive study of the different laws and decisions with respect to the fisheries and the respective rights of the federal government and the governments of the provinces. I shall not venture to quote in full the notes of the learned jurist, but allow me, Mr. Speaker, to draw your attention to the following:
In the province of Quebec, under the old French law and before 1760, "the right of fishing in navigable waters belonged to the domain of the crown and the public enjoyed the right of fishing in such waters, only subject to the prerogative of the king of France, to grant at his pleasure exclusive rights of fishing to individuals." This state of law, however, was altered "by statutes passed after the session of 1763."
It is not necessary for me to dwell at great length on the various statutes passed until the British North America Act became law in 1867.
In the case of the Attorney General for the Dominion vs. the Attorney General for the Provinces, submitted to the privy council in 1898, it has been held that the exclusive power of regulating fisheries, "no matter where they were situated, was vested in the federal government, under the British North America Act, but that any rights which the provinces had prior to confederation were still retained by them." It has been contended that this decision "did not define what were those property rights of the provinces." After the rendering of the said decision in 1898, the provinces along the sea claim the administration of their respective fisheries.
It was decided in 1914, in the case of the Attorney General for British Columbia vs. the attorney general for the dominion (1914-A. C. 153) that:
[DOT]-it was not competent for the legislature of British Columbia to authorize the government of the province to grant exclusive rights of fisheries in tidal rivers or in the sea, including arms of the sea and estuaries of rivers. It was laid down that in the sea wherever the common law of England applies the right of fishing is a public right not dependent on the proprietary-title and that consequently tile regulation of the right must rest exclusively with the Dominion parliament.
It has been said that this decision settled all causes of litigation between the dominion and the provinces, everywhere except in Quebec.
In the province of Quebec, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the law is different from the

Maritime Fisheries, Quebec
law of the other provinces. The latter are governed by the common law of England and the former by the civil code and the statutes of the local parliament.
Immediately after the decision of the privy council, in 1914, the Dominion of Canada published, in the official Canada Gazette, a notice stating that on January 1, 1915, "it would assume control of the fisheries in the tidal rivers of the province of Quebec hitherto administered by the federal government" and at the same time, on the 25th of January, the government of the province of Quebec published, in the Quebec Official Gazette, a notice that "the decision of the British Columbia reference did not apply to the province of Quebec and that, therefore, any person wishing to fish in the river and gulf of the St. Lawrence and any tidal waters, should make application to the Department of Colonization, Mines and Fisheries" to obtain the necessary license or permit.
As a result of the fresh controversy which then arose, a new reference to the privy council was agreed upon and in 1914 the case of the Attorney General for the province of Quebec vs. the Attorney General for the Dominion of Canada was submitted to the court of the King's Bench of the province of Quebec, and afterwards to the privy council. That case is precisely the one I referred to a moment, ago, when I quoted the judgment of Lord Haldane. The decision of the privy council was decidedly in favour of the Dominion of Canada. The distinction made by the lords of the privy council is very clear. In tidal waters the power of granting rights of fisheries is vested exclusively in the federal government when the fishing is carried on in the waters without attaching engines or nets to the soil; but when the fishing is carried on by way of fishing nets attached to the soil, the provincial government has the exclusive power to grant the right to affix engines to the soil.
Be that as it may; that decision was not at all a victory for the government of the province of Quebec, as was admitted by the former Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) on April 3, 1922, at page 620 of volume 1 of Hansard for 1922, when he recognized that the decision of the privy council in 1920 gave to the federal government the exclusive power of regulating the fisheries.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that that decision was certainly a very wise one. It marked the end of a long .struggle the sole result of which had been, federally as well as provincially, to divert attention from a basic industry, just as important as agriculture, and to delay
for a quarter of a century the rational organization of our deep sea fisheries. It finally placed Quebec on a basis of equality with the other provinces, permitting it:
(1)	To have a single and complete fishery service: (a) to compel respect for the laws and regulations; (b) to ensure the observance of the treaties concerning foreign fishermen on our coasts;
(2)	To put an end to abusive and indefinite claims derived from certain seigneurial privileges;
(3)	To place the entire service, police and education, under the experienced direction of the federal department, which is equipped with the required means of action;
(4)	To establish a system of cooperation, along well defined lines, 'betwen the federal and provincial governments, in order to revive our deep sea fisheries. The highest authorities of the country, united under the name of Natural Resources Conservation Commission, had already recognized that such cooperation was essential to ensure the full application to the deep sea fisheries of the administration's salutary influence.
(5)	To liberate the provincial treasury from an expensive and difficult service, entailing if it is to be carried to the same degree of perfection and usefulness as those of the maritime provinces, for example, an annual expenditure that cannot be less than $400,000 or $500,000. As these provinces cost the federal treasury over $1,000,000 a year, it is considered that from $400,000 to $500,000 should be allowed to the province of Quebec, where all is yet to be done.
During the season of 1921, in pursuance of the decision of the privy council, the federal Department of Marine and Fisheries assumed the administration of all fisheries "in navigable waters accessible from the sea by navigation." The department drew up and started to carry out the following program of reforms:
(a)	To create a staff of younger men who would follow a course of special studies and secure technical qualifications, etc. To begin with, fish wardens had to be trained, just as agronomists are in agriculture, along the lines already followed in the maritime provinces.
(b)	To increase salaries in order that the new staff should devote its whole time to the fishery service.
(c)	To establish a bureau of fisheries at Quebec.
(d)	To establish an educational centre somewhere in the Gaspe peninsula to meet the immediate requirements of the service, then to develop into a marine biological station, demonstration, study and information centre, etc.
Maritime Fisheries, Quebec

(e)	To carry on throughout the province a publicity campaign for the products of the sea, etc., etc.
It is interesting now to ask ourselves whether the government of the province of Quebec at any time in 1921 expressed its willingness to cooperate with the dominion authorities in putting into operation the program of reforms which had been proposed by the federal Department of Fisheries. The government of the province of Quebec was desirous of concealing from the electorate of that province the fact that it had gained nothing in the long and protracted litigation which lasted more than twenty years. It gave the keynote to the Liberal newspapers of the province of Quebec to proclaim that the privy council had recognized the predominant claims of the province over the rights of the federal government. The present hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) on April 3, 1922, admitted in the House of Commons that there was still a conflict as to jurisdicition in the administration of fisheries along the coast. Instead of safeguarding the rights of the fishermen of the province of Quebec the Dominion government in the month of February, 1922, by a mere order in council, transferred the whole administration of Quebec fisheries to the legislature of that province.
May I state, Mr. Speaker, how that came about. Hon. members know that a general election was held in the year 1921. Throughout the campaign in the province of Quebec not a word was uttered on Liberal platforms concerning the administration of fisheries within the province. The Conservative government was defeated at the polls. In the month of January, 1922, the new administration took office. At that time the present hon. member for Quebec East was made Minister of Marine and Fisheries and began to negotiate in camera with the Minister of Fisheries in the province of Quebec. As I have said, in February, 1922, by a mere order in council, without the authority of parliament, the government of the dominion transferred the administration of fisheries to the legislature of the province of Quebec.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Onésime Gagnon: Before recess, Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the purport of the order in council passed by the Dominion government on February 14, 1922, transferring the adminis-

tration of fisheries in the province of Quebec to the government of that province. I stated that this order in council, although very far-reaching in its scope, had not been made the subject of public discussion during the federal elections which had taken place only two months before it was passed, and that neither the Liberal candidates for the federal. house nor the premier of Quebec, who took a great part in those elections, let the people of that province know the drastic change which was contemplated with regard to the administration of fisheries.


Mr. DUPUIS:: I would like to know where and in what circumstances the premier of Quebec took such a large part in that federal election.


Onésime Gagnon: 
Pierre-François Casgrain: Mr. Perrault is not
Minister of Fisheries now.


Onésime Gagnon: Mr. Perrault is reported to have said that from that time on the province of Quebec would have absolute control over its fisheries, and when a debate took place in the provincial legislature Hon. Mr. Perrault boasted of having achieved such astounding results. The leader of the opposition, who then was Mr. Arthur Sauve, the present Postmaster General, expressed some fears as to the legality of the transfer of such rights which, by the British North America Act, were vested solely in the dominion parliament. He suggested that the provincial government should have some legislation enacted which would really protect the interests of the fishermen of Quebec, but nothing of the sort was done.
The Liberal newspapers, inspired by the leaders of the party at Quebec as well as at Ottawa, took care to proclaim the great victory achieved by the province in preventing the dominion from contributing any money to provide the fishermen of Quebec with an efficient and reasonable service. After having read those remarks I am not surprised that hon. gentlemen opposite have beenjsilent and deaf for eight years and that they never invoked the authority of the federal government to come to the rescue of the fishermen of Quebec. But now, Mr. Speaker, when we have a Conservative administration here in Ottawa, hon. gentlemen opposite proclaim themselves the saviours of the fishermen, and want to have the impression go throughout Quebec that we are not adequately protecting the fishermen of that province, though that province has taken the matter under its own control and this government has been prevented from contributing anything to help those men.
This afternoon, before the dinner hour, I heard the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), helping his friend the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), ask
that the federal government cooperate with the provincial government. I have before me Hansard for 1922, and I find that the hon. member for Bonaventure brought forward a resolution congratulating the Dominion government, presided over at that time by the present right hon. leader of the opposition, for having secured that great victory for Quebec, in the transfer of the administration of fisheries. I find also the speech made in this house by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who explained very fully all the different legislation, the orders in council and the judgments of the privy council which had to do with the matter. When Mr. Mc-Quarrie, at that time a distinguished member from British Columbia, rose in his place and put some questions concerning the administration of fisheries in Quebec and in British Columbia, one of the many reasons advanced by the former Minister of Justice to justify the transfer was that the federal government had spent in Quebec $88,000 and had received only $12,000. On April 3, 1922, answering a question put to him by Mr. Ladner, another distinguished member from British Columbia, the former Minister of Justice said:
I do not see how any revenue could be enjoyed in view of the fact that we expended $88,000 last year and the receipts were only $12,000. So the Quebec fisheries will be a charge on the provincial government.
Now, this is the wonderful way in which our friends opposite have seen fit to serve the interests of the fishermen of Quebec. It is no surprise that they who have been deaf and mute for twelve years now say that the exchequer of Quebec has not sufficient revenues, and that this is the reason why the federal government should contribute more towards the Quebec fisheries service.
I am not opposed to the federal government helping the fisheries of Quebec, and I am ready to support the motion; but, Mr. Speaker, I think it is imperative that we on this side of the house should tell the people of Quebec what motives lie behind this motion, and that we should tell of the great betrayal in 1922 of the fishermen of Quebec by our friends opposite. Mr. Meighen, the then leader of the opposition, speaking on the same motion expressed his surprise at the astounding procedure the government had chosen to adopt to get rid of the administration of fisheries, and he added:
The minister's remarks have been of value as interpreting the judgments delivered since 1882 by the privy council. I may go further and say that they are illuminating on every question except those questions which may possibly come in controversy and be of moment in connection with the conduct of administration,
Maritime Fisheries, Quebec

that is to say, on the question of the right of the government of Canada to abdicate to any other government a function placed in it by the constitution, the right of the government of Canada by order in council to amend the British North America Act.
The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay and the hon. meiriber for Bonaventure have referred to a delegation which last week interviewed the .provincial Minister of Fisheries at Quebec, .but the former hon. gentleman deemed it wise not to read the memorandum which that delegation then submitted, for it strongly condemned the fisheries administration of the provincial government. The text of this memorandum was published in the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph on the nineteenth instant. As hon. members know, that newspaper supports the provincial government. This appears on the front page.
The object of our visit, Mr. Minister, is to bring to your kind attention the following facts:
1. Stagnation and decline of our fisheries:
It is an axiom of general knowledge that, "When we do not advance, we recede." In 1922, in the legislative assembly, Mr. Fabien Bugeaud brought to notice our state of stagnation; the total yield of our fisheries has not changed since fifty years. Therefore, if there must be a change, if it is to come soon, it appears that it will come under the heading of a deficit. To back up this assertion, allow me to quote some figures establishing a comparison between the revenues of the Quebec fisheries and those of three other important provinces; New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. These last show a total augmentation of approximately $29,000,000 during this period -while w-e show a decline.
Then they give these figures:
Nova Scotia
1880	$ 6,219,061
1930	 10,411,202
New Brunswick
1880	 2,744,447
1930	 4,853,575
British Columbia
1880	 713,335
1930	 23,103,302
Quebec
1880	 2,631,556
1930	 2,503,998
I ask hon. members to notice that in the fifty years from 1880 to 1930 the fishery revenues of British Columbia increased from $713,335 to the huge sum of $23,103,302, while the fishery revenues of Quebec decreased in that period from $2,631,556 to $2,503,998.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Onésime Gagnon: Those facts are astounding, and they tend to prove that instead of resorting to litigation for half a century the government of Quebec should have come to an

understanding with the federal government. Now, the only way to remedy the situation is to arrange a conference between the provincial and the federal authorities, to ascertain by what means the interest of the fishermen and the public interest would be best served. Although, as I said a moment ago, this resolution is moved only in order to try to impress on the people of Quebec that the Conservative -party never did anything for the fisheries of Quebec, for my hon. friend knows very well that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the fisheries of Quebec, yet if my humble vote can do something to relieve the sufferings of our fishermen brought about by the misguided policy of our friends opposite when they held office and assumed to transfer the administration of the Quebec fisheries by a mere order in council, a procedure which was ultra vires, and extraordinary-I say if I can do anything to help relieve our fishermen from the disadvantages which they are now labouring under as a result of that ill-advised action, I will vote for the resolution.


Maurice Brasset: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with much attention to the debate and I am in full accord with the purpose of the resolution. I am very much interested indeed in the ultimate settlement of this question, my county being situated in that part of the Gaspe peninsula where the province of Quebec has control of its fisheries, while the Dominion government have control of the Magdalen islands.
I do not quite understand the motives underlying the speech delivered by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). This is not a question of politics, it is not a question of Conservative or Liberal policy, it is simply a question of helping the fishermen. In 1922 the province of Quebec asked the Dominion government to take over control of the fisheries of the province, because the fishermen, especially those on the Gaspe coast, were in a state of distress. After the war there were no fishing boats on the Gaspe coast, these people not being able to resume fishing operations, and the provincial government asked the Dominion government to cooperate in the control of these fisheries, not simply to have control but to cooperate in the helping of the fishermen of Gaspe and of the province.
I cannot understand the attitude of hon. members opposite, especially those from the province of Quebec. Every time they rise in their places to discuss a matter concerning Quebec, they do not discuss it from the federal angle, but blame everything on

Maritime Fisheries, Quebec
Premier Taschereau. It is not the premier's fault that this government is in its present condition. Every time hon. members speak of Quebec they bring in the name of Premier Taschereau. He can handle his own business and I ask this government to handle the business of Canada.
We ask that the government give assistance to the fishermen of Quebec. Only a few years ago the farmers of the west had no need of dominion assistance; the country was prosperous and they were able to take care of their own needs. But a crisis came and the farmers of the west had to ask the federal government for assistance, which was granted last year in the form of a bonus on wheat of five cents per bushel. The same thing is true of Quebec. In past years the fishermen had no need of assistance from the federal government or from the provincial government. During the past ten years the provincial government has helped them to the extent of paying fifty per cent of the cost of the construction of their schooners as well as assistance in the purchasing of equipment. A very grave state of affairs exists to-day on the Gaspe coast and the provincial government alone is not able to grant the assistance required. These people now come to the federal government to ask that they be granted the required relief. The fisheries of the dominion expended in 1929-30, $2,400,000, a large portion of this amount being in the form of taxes paid by the fishermen of Quebec. It is only right that these men now have a share in the expenditures being made by this government. It is up to the federal government to contribute something towards the support of the fishermen of Quebec, and it is because of this that I am in full accord with the resolution moved by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain).


Mr. L. W. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, before this discussion closes I should like to make a few remarks. The ground has been covered very ably by the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg (Mr. Ernst) and there is very little more to be said. However, as I represent a constituency in which there are a great number of fishermen, I feel that I should say a few words on their behalf.
I am in accord with the resolution moved this afternoon by the hon. member (Mr. Casgrain) but I would have liked to have seen it phrased in broader terms. He should have made his resolution apply to coastal water generally. The situation facing the fishing industry is serious. In Cape Breton
we are confronted with the interference of outside fishermen and the high price of bait.
Only to-day I received a letter from a fisherman in my constituency complaining about the Newfoundland fishermen coming into Antigonish and other ports on the northern coast. These men catch and clean their fish outside and then come into our ports to salt their catch, and they interfere with the rights of our own fishermen.
Another very serious question is that of bait. These men want cold storage facilities provided in Cape Breton. There is one plant there already, one-third of which is owned by the government, but it has been leased to a private concern and our fishermen cannot obtain their bait at reasonable prices, and this is causing great distress at the present time. The price of bait asked by the local firms is so high that the men cannot afford to buy it, and there are no cold storage facilities provided for the storage of their own bait. It would be of great assistance to the fishermen if they could obtain their bait at a proper price.
The lack of markets is a great problem, and I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) that Canada should provide a market for our fish. I do not desire to say anything detrimental to the cooking abilities of Canadian women, but I contend that they should be educated in the use of our fish. An attempt has been made to educate Canadians to use coke instead of foreign coal, and similar education could be carried on in connection with our fish. The women of Canada should be taught how to use and cook Canadian fish.
I am sure that this resolution will do some good because it has provided the opportunity for a discussion of this question. I feel quite confident that the government will take such action as will improve the condition of a very important part of our population.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, coming as I do from a county where over half of the population earns its livelihood by fishing, I think I should be lax in my duty if I allowed this opportunity to pass without saying a word or two, even though the resolution pertains only to the province of Quebec. I regret that the hon. member who introduced the resolution (Mr. Casgrain) did not make it dominion-wide. He bases his resolution on the fact that the province of Quebec, which administers its own fisheries, is not now in a position to give the required assistance to the fishermen of that province, and he asks for cooperation between the governments of the
Maritime Fisheries, Quebec

province of Quebec and the Dominion of Canada.
I regret that this resolution has been taken as an excuse for political discussion, but since it has drifted into the realm of politics, may I point out to hon. gentlemen opposite from the province of Quebec that Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island do not administer the fisheries of their respective provinces. If the fact that the government of Quebec has jurisdiction over its own fishermen has brought about chaos, as my hon. friend attempts to show, what must we say of the last two or three years of the administration by the federal government of the fisheries in the three maritime provinces?
I am not going to lay upon any government the blame for the depression in the fishing industry. During the last two years especially, the fishermen of Nova Scotia have been repeatedly asking the federal government, and rightly so, to come to their assistance. Even when times were good, even from 1926 to 1929, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as well as Prince Edward Island fishermen appealed to the federal government for greater encouragement. Why? Because, owing to the greater development of the fishing industry in European countries, we could not get the markets that we previously had. For that reason the governments of the three maritime provinces took upon themselves the responsibility of appealing to the federal government, even under the Duncan report, to do something for the fishermen. Therefore I take it that the condition existing in Quebec to-day is not because of the fact that jurisdiction over the fisheries in that province was transferred to the provincial government in 1922.
Having said that much about the political aspect of the matter, may I be permitted to draw the attention of the house to the fishing industry in the maritime provinces, and especially in New Brunswick. I am not doing this in order to criticize the government of the day. I firmly believe you cannot attribute present conditions in the fishing industry in New Brunswick to the government of the day or to any other. As I have explained before, circumstances have arisen which have placed our fishermen in a position which renders it very difficult for them to make a livelihood as they did in former years. But there is one thing which governments can do in the matter of regulation for the conservation of the fishing industry. In mentioning that point, may I call the attention of the government to the regulation governing lobster fishing? For years and years there has existed in New Brunswick a regulation which divides the

province into different fishing seasons of lobsters. For instance, there is an imaginary line drawn from Ste. Anne in the county of Kent to Cape Tormentine. Under the regulation establishing those limits lobster can be fished in that section in the fall of the year. Many fishermen further north in Ste. Anne du Bocage claim that line should be extended to include the whole north shore and that the spring season should be abolished.
What are the conditions? In the counties of Kent and Westmorland, lobster fishermen can fish in the fall of the year, I think from August 15 to October 15. What happens? The fishermen in Kent and Westmorland west of the dividing line, during the spring season of fishing north of that line, go up into Northumberland, Gloucester and Restigouche and fish during that season. Then when the spring season is over, they go back to their homes and fish during the fall up to the 15th of October. In this way they have two fishing seasons whereas our fishermen north of the line, as far north as Restigouche county, have only the one. There is at present a petition before the Department of Fisheries requesting a change in the fishing season in the nothem section of the province, and I hope the department will consider it very carefully. I am told that owing to scientific reasons the date should not be changed; that if we change the date, we may contribute to the rapid destruction of lobsters in northern New Brunswick. Storms in northern New Brunswick during the winter have caused more destruction to the lobster industry that lack of proper regulations. During the storm in the latter part of December of last year, it was estimated that 100 tons or more of live lobsters were driven ashore in the gulf of St. Lawrence on the island of Miscou, Shippigan island, the mainland of Shippigan down as far as Tracadie beach. These lobsters died on the beach. I am not saying that the government should establish a regulation to prevent such an occurrence, but I wish to point out that nature at times causes more destruction to the lobster industry than any lack of regulation.
We know there is poaching, and if there is poaching in any line of the fishing industry it is in regard to lobsters. Education is required to teach those people that they should give up poaching. There is no doubt they will give it up in the very late season, but between seasons, from the middle of June to the middle of August, is the period when the regulations should be strictly enforced, because it is the time in that section when the lobster sheds its shell and, and so to speak, takes on a new dress. But between

Mantime Fisheries, Quebec
August 15 and October 15, the lobster shell is just as hard and firm in the waters of northern New Brunswick as it is in the section of the province where the fishermen are permitted to fish during that period. I would ask the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), who was formerly Minister of Fisheries to extend to the present Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau) his knowledge of the situation and not to give too much heed to the theorists, who, calling themselves scientific men, are preventing the fishermen of northern New Brunswick from earning an honest livelihood.
Another question touched upon by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) was that of salted fish. I am in full accord with him on this subject. It is absolutely necessary in these trying times of depression that we should give more encouragement to our fishermen. I do not believe in a bonus, but as the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg said this afternoon, if that is the only means which this government can devise to help out our fishermen, I should be willing to support it. We have been asked to give our support to a bonus to help the farmers of the west, and I willingly and cheerfully agreed to that because it was pointed out to us that that was the only way in which those farmers could be helped at that time. We have also given a bonus to the coal industry in Nova Scotia, and with that I also agreed. Now we are asking that some encouragement be given to an industry which to my mind is greater even than the mining industry in the maritime provinces.. Our fishemen by the thousands and hundreds of thousands are suffering to-day because they cannot get a proper market or a proper price for their fish, and if there is no other way to help them except by a bonus, if they cannot obtain the markets which formerly gave them a reasonable living price for their products, then I would agree to a bonus of so much to each fisherman; or perhaps one way to help would be to assist in the construction and maintenance of the vessels that are used in carrying on that business and which cost so much.
I am not going to discuss to-night the salmon branch of the fishing industry, because I dealt with that last winter, and the one reproach that I have to make to the Minister of Fisheries of that day-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Only one?


Mr. YENIOT:: Only one. My one reproach is this: He promised that he would come and visit our salmon nets last summer and see how our fishermen laboured to catch the salmon, and he did not keep that promise. I know
he was a busy man, but he was not too busy, Mr. Speaker, to spend a day or two on the Restigouche. He was not too busy to enjoy the hospitality of those American gentlemen who to-day are claiming that they should have rights over the fishermen of the province of New Brunswick. I am going to say to the present Minister of Finance that that invitation for him to come and visit our salmon fisheries is still open. He may reply: I am not the Minister of Fisheries; there is an Acting Minister of Fisheries; invite him. No, Mr. Speaker, because the present Acting Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Duranleau), when a delegation appeared before him two weeks ago, although he received us in a kindly way and was very courteous, admitted quite openly- I compliment him upon his frankness-that he knew absolutely nothing about salmon or fishing, not even about the casting of a line. Therefore I want somebody to come on tfie spot who knows something about angling.


Mr. SWANSTON:: You know all about firing postmasters.


Peter John Veniot: I have fired postmasters, but I have never fired one-tenth of the number that have been fired since your party came into power; and I am not blaming the Postmastet General for doing the firing but those hungry Tories ait his back. I am a little surprised, Mr. Speaker, that on a question of this importance the hon. member who interrupted has nothing more to say than that. I am sure his constituents would be pleased if they saw that he had once stood on the floor of this house and delivered a sensible speech that would be reported in Hansard, instead of interrupting hon. members who are trying to do their duty in this house.
I am not going to take up the time of the house further, except once more to draw the attention of the Department of Fisheries to the petition that is now before them touching the change of date in the lobster fishing in the northern section of New Brunswick.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I shall try to be brief in my remarks, Mr. Speaker. The discussion on the resolution has been going on for some time; I never thought it would be so lengthy. The consensus of opinion among the members of the house seems to be in favour of the adoption of this resolution and I am pleased that both members from the maritime provinces and members from the province of Quebec on the government side are willing to support my motion.
There is one thing I should like to point out, however. Although the hon. member for
Maritime Fisheries, Quebec

Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) has discussed this question in the way he has, and launched upon an attack against what he 'Called the bad administration of the fisheries in the province of Quebec due to the fisheries having come under the control of the provincial government in recent years, he seems to be not quite in accord with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), who this afternoon stated that nothing had been taken away from the fishermen of the province of Quebec, because they had still the right to avail themselves of the various provisions that are on our statute books, such as the federal grant of seventy-five per cent for refrigerators for bait, and the regular grant of thirty per cent for other refrigerators which are necessary for fishermen. The difficulty is-and it is the reason for this motion-that the fishermen in the province of Quebec, and more especially on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence, are in a very unfortunate situation at the present time, having had a poor catch of fish for the last few years; therefore they are not in a position to avail themselves of any such grants or to contribute in the proportion which the law requires before they can obtain these refrigeration facilities. The consequence is that last year and the year before the provincial government has had to do practically everything on its own account in the way of establishing these refrigerator plants on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence in my county. As far as other laws on the statute book of which fishermen might take advantage are concerned, they are not in a position to do so, and since the administration of the fisheries was entrusted to the provincial government in 1922, it has had to do everything on its own account. The revenues derived from the fisheries by the provincial government, I am informed, although I have not exact figures, amount to hardly one per cent of the amount which the provincial government is spending nearly every year on the fisheries of the province, which is $300,000. When the provincial government was entrusted with the administration of the fisheries in 1922, it was due to the fact that it was desired to avoid the difficulties that had prevailed before with respect to licences in interior waters and also in deep and salt water down the lower part of the gulf. That is one of the reasons why the provincial government took over the administration of the fisheries as they stood within the limits of the province of Quebec. Now if the administration of the fisheries by the government of the province of Quebec has been bad, although my hon. friend from Dorchester claims that the

blame should be laid at the door of the provincial government, surely the same blame should be laid at the door of this federal administration when we find conditions obtaining in the maritime provinces as they have been represented by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot). 'Conditions there do not seem to be much better than in the province of Quebec. If the federal administration did not do well in turning over to the provincial government the administration of the law, not the rights of the fishermen, as was suggested by the hon. member for Dorchester, I say, Mr. Speaker, that this government is here to settle all ills. They were elected to give better and more efficient administration, to settle all existing difficulties, to bring back prosperity, happiness and plenty to all. As I have said, I am merely asking that they give the necessary help to the province of Quebec, and I have given my reasons.
I wish to touch upon another point-and for this reason I hope hon. members will hear me a few moments more. The hon. member for Dorchester says we have been absolutely silent for the past eight years, that nothing has been done since the administration of the fisheries was turned over to the government of the province of Quebec. I was not a member sitting for the county of Saguenay on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence when the administration of the fisheries was transferred to the provincial government of Quebec. I was then sitting for the county of Charlevoix-Montmorency. In that district there were not very many fishermen, and the conditions affecting the deep sea fisheries did not obtain there as they do now on the north shore of 'the St. Lawrence. Since the year 1926 I have represented in this House of Commons the county of Saguenay on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence, and have been deeply interested in the fisheries. I have been working much more than my hon. friend from Dorchester would lead the house to believe. If he were to refer to the royal commission which investigated the fisheries of the maritime provinces and the Magdalen Islands he would find that on March 20 in the year 1928 the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay appeared before the commission and presented a brief in the interests of the fishermen along the north shore of the St. Lawrence. At pages 85 and 86 of the report of that commission, issued in the year 1928, my hon. friend will see that the commissioners took cognizance of certain remarks that I made at that time in the interests of the fishermen in my constituency. I shall not take the time to read all the comments contained in this report,

Maritime Fisheries, Quebec
because theTe are many paragraphs which might not be of interest to all hon. members. There are certain points however to which I think I should direct the attention of the house. At page 86 of the report I find the following:
In marketing the fish products of the Gaspe peninsula and the north shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, most of which is without railway-communication, and is completely isolated during many months of the year, shippers have to rely upon subsidized steamship services performed under contract by the Clarke Steamship Company.
Then, further on in the report I find the following:
Accordingly, there is a demand for improvement in the service performed by the Clarke Steamship Company. We recommend a consideration of the existing contract with the view of affording to this section of the country more adequate transportation facilities.
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of this parliament and the Department of Trade and Commerce. Following the report to w'hich I have referred endeavours were made successfully to secure an enlargement of the subsidies so that adequate facilities, such as refrigeration services in the boats of the Clarke Steamship Company, might be had on the north shore of the St. Lawrence. I am told that such service was extended to the boats of the same company plying between Quebec and the Gaspe peninsula.
I find in the report the further paragraph:
Railway freight and express rates are also complained of in that portion of the Gaspe peninsula which has railway connection.
Railway facilities are under the control of this parliament, and are matters of which this government should take cognizance. In the report a further request was made for harbour improvements or shelters for shore boats on the Gaspe peninsula. At the same time I appeared before the commission, I mentioned that such facilities should be afforded to people along the north shore of the river St. Lawrence.
If hon. members in this house or people outside the house would look at some of the estimates tabled in the years 1928, 1929 and 1930, they would surely find out that your humble servant has not been remiss in the discharge of his duties, because on many occasions I was rebuked by hon. members who then constituted the opposition, and was taken to task even by some members in my own party, because I was asking for too many improvements, such as wharf accommodation, dredging, and harbours, to benefit the fishermen on the north shore. The government implemented part of this report of the commission by paying attention to some of the requests made and by improving facilities at many points along the north shore. That is true more especially at a place called Tunday river, where a wharf was needed, and at Bredor Bay, near Labrador, where similar work was necessary. Many little harbours and breakwaters have been built to help the fishermen, and to implement the report made by this commission.
There is another paragraph in the report dealing with matters which might well be developed by the Department of Fisheries in the province of Quebec. I refer to the grading and inspection of fish, the establishment of a technological and biological laboratory for experiments, the institution of a bureau of information, a scientific study of the oceanography of the river and gulf of St. Lawrence, the migration of the different species of fish, the making of fishing charts, the adoption of a policy of subsidies for cold storage plants, fish canning factories, drying establishments and reduction plants. I think the provincial government in Quebec, which now looks after the administration of law's concerning the fisheries, has begun to deal with the matters here mentioned in the report. As I stated previously the amount required from year to year is far greater than the province of Quebec can afford to spend. The need is always increasing, and there is the added reason that in the years 1930 and 1931, the catch has been small along the north shore of the St. Lawrence. A large amount of the money which might have been divided to help the services mentioned in this report was given by way of subsidy or relief to the people along the north shore of the river. That was the condition obtaining before the relief measures were passed two years ago in this House of Commons.
So, Mr. Speaker, although hon. members opposite may want the country to believe that the hon. member representing Charlevoix-Saguenay has not discharged his duty, it is quite clear they are not stating the facts. Since I have represented that constituency I have given my best attention to the needs of the fishermen. If in the years 1929 and 1930, the government was not approached to secure the relief now described in the resolution, it was because conditions at that time were not so bad. Our markets had not been closed, and the fishermen were in a position to dispose of their product at reasonable prices. To-day they are in a much different position, and it is for that reason this resolution has been introduced before the house.
Maritime Fisheries, Quebec

This afternoon I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg say he was going to take this matter up with the government with a view to helping the fishermen. Apparently three remedies were suggested. The first was a bonus to be given to the fishermen; the second, trade treaties, and the third, the stabilization of currency. If some of those remedies could be applied, fishermen not only in the province of Quebec but also along Atlantic and Pacific sea coasts would receive some benefit.
If we are soliciting federal assistance, it is so that there may be established on the coast of Gaspe, and possibly on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, biological and experimental stations from which the fishermen would be able to obtain information required, such as meteorological reports. Such reports should be printed in the French language. May I call the attention of the house to the fact that two-thirds of the fishermen in the province of Quebec are French, and they cannot take full advantage of all the valuable work that has been done at the biological stations if the results of that work are not translated into French. These stations are far away, and the fishermen cannot go to St. Andrews and Halifax from their own towns or villages on the north shore of the St. Lawrence in order to obtain information. I have in my hand a letter which I addressed last year to the Department of Fisheries, asking for a number of publications which I thought might be of interest to the fishermen in my district. I found that the French edition of a pamphlet entitled "Dried Cod Fisheries" was almost exhausted. Who is to blame for that?
These things should not be allowed to go on if we really want to help the fishermen in Quebec. Measures should be taken also to develop our fish trade more than it has been developed in the past. This might be done by .[DOT]educing the cost of transportation and creating local markets for our fresh fish. If this were done it would be of great help to the fishermen in my constituency.
I did not introduce this resolution because I wanted to play politics at all, as the hon. member for Dorchester suggested; I did not bring up this matter at the request of any person in the provincial government. As I said in my opening remarks, a similar resolution was adopted by the provincial house, after being introduced by the local member for my county, and I thought it behooved me to lay the case before this house with regard to the fisheries of Quebec. I think a bonne entente might be arrived at, and by coopera-
tion and conference between the two governments the little troubles that have existed in the past may be ironed ,out and we might start anew in order to help the fishing industry in Quebec as it should be helped.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I suggested to my hon.
friend that while his resolution was not unacceptable to the government in its present form, it would be more acceptable if he amended it by substituting the words "the greatest possible" for the words "a greater" in the third line.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I have no objection to
amending it in that way if it will then be acceptable to the government.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It will be quite acceptable.
Motion (Mr. Casgrain) as amended agreed to.



NATIONAL HEALTH


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration steps which would:	(a) provide for
periodic medical examination of the Canadian people; (b) afford medical relief for those suffering from disease.
He said: Mr. Speaker, without casting any reflection on the debate that has just concluded, one might mention in passing that it has been rather fishy. I hope the subject I seek to place before the house to-night will not bring out any political arguments but that the attitude of last year will be the attitude of this year also.
Last session, Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to present to this house a resolution similar in principle and meaning to the resolution I am moving to-night. It was very well received, generously considered and not unsympathetically criticized. Of the seventeen members who spoke to the motion all but three either spoke in favour of the resolution or of the principle which it sought to establish. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), however, opposed the -motion and stated at some length his reasons for doing so. He said it was a purely academic resolution, and with that statement I have no great fault to find, unless the right hon. gentleman meant to infer that the idea could have no practical application. If that was what he meant, of course I do not agree, because my purpose in bringing the matter before the house was not to precipitate a highbrow debate, but

National Health-Mr. Howden
rather in the hope that some time Canada would adopt a measure of public medicine which would assure the people of this country of succor and relief in times of ill health, and as far as possible immunity from disability caused by disease.
At that time the Prime Minister stated that probably the greatest objection to the resolution was that it would wipe out medical service as it existed at the present time and would completely eliminate private enterprise in medicine, thus destroying the initiative of medical men. He did not say so at the time' but I rather fancy he meant that this would occur quickly. I had no idea that my innocent looking resolution might become such a force for disruption and revolution, but not wishing to abandon what I considered to be a good cause I have brought forward the resolution again to-night in a form which I hope will be more acceptable to the government.
This is quite an important matter, Mr. Speaker, and it deserves a fair amount of consideration. I understand quite a number of our members wish to speak to the resolution, if possible, so in order to set forth the situation as clearly as possible I should like to refer quite freely to the written text I have before me.
It would seem rather anomalous that we should try to preserve and prolong life in Canada at this time when, if it were not for relief measures instituted by various governments, we would have many thousand of our people underfed, hungry or actually starving. It might be said that the more rational procedure would be to find some means of quietly doing away with about one third of our population, that is, that part which has no visible means of support. Thereby we would summarily and effectively dispose of that sorely vexing question of unemployment. Something of the same idea is hinted at bj' Sir Andrew Rae Duncan and one of his colleagues in a report I have before me. This report points out the somewhat antagonistic interests of the individual and the state in a time of illness. Each time a sick person recovers it is but against the time he will sicken again and further burden the state. If in the meantime such person has been the means' of begetting other life, and the offspring, like the parent, be of inferior mental and physical stamina, also subject to illness and requiring an undue amount of care and medical attention, the state in rendering the service which saved the parent has thereby largely added to its own responsibility and expense, and in the report the wisdom of this
is mildly questioned. Were it not better to let the fittest survive and the devil take the hindermost? There is a good deal to be said in support of this, Mr. Speaker. Such a principle obtains in the life of all wild species and all primitive or aboriginal peoples and when given a reasonable show they seem to do pretty well. Since fewer would survive there would be less unemployment, and since chiefly the stronger would survive it would be the means of building up a strong and virile nation and perhaps saving us a good deal of trouble and expenses. In the history of civilization there was a time when imbeciles and other subjects of hopeless infirmity were smothered, drowned or whatnot, but fortunately, or otherwise, civilization has advanced to the stage where such procedure is no longer practised, where each individual human born is accorded a right with his brother to survive and afforded the same opportunity to a fairly substantial degree. Probably it is just as well that it is so, Mr. Speaker, for by some strange turn of fate the ugly duckling becomes a handsome drake; the puniest member of a flock or litter lives to outdo the more thrifty .members; undersized, delicate children often become sturdy specimens of adult life, and on the other hand the world's greatest accomplishments in art, science, literature, in commerce and in war have been achieved in many instances by men of frail make-up, at times the subject of wasting disease and altogether below the average in ordinary physique. It would almost seem that the frail form is given the better brain by way perchance of compensation.
Therefore civilization and society being as they are, we must adopt the only alternative and endeavour to modify our social structure so as to minimize unemployment on the one hand and eliminate as far as possible the existence of disease and the causes of defective manhood on the other. In the last session of parliament, Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to present to this chamber a resolution reading:
In the opinion of this house a measure of federal state medicine would be in the best interests of the Canadian people.
On that occasion it was suggested that the weaiLth of any land could be obtained by labour and labour only, that efficient labour could be the product of only a sound body, that therefore the wealth of a nation depended on the health of its citizens and that as Canada was a land of stern realities only those of strong physique and stern resolve could hope to prevail. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not all strong
National Health-Mr. Howden

in either body or mind:. Unfortunately a very large number are defective either mentally or physically or both, are either chronic invalids or rapidly succumb to illness and become a government charge or a burden to their relatives. Under the heading "Canada, is at War" the Canadian Social Hygiene Council issued a pamphlet containing some facts which the house would do well to consider. Let me quote:
Every year thousands of Canadians die of diseases which could be prevented.
It then asks a pertinent question:
Why are these diseases not prevented?
It states further:
During centuries man has acquired the habit of regarding disease as unavoidable. To-day the average man-even the average statesman -retains that medieval attitude. Leaders of the people must come forward to save the thousands of Canadian lives that are lost every year through diseases which could be prevented if a nation-wide organized effort were made to prevent them. Most splendid work is being done by health departments in various parts of Canada. The following facts and figures will show that their work must be united in a great national offensive against the common enemy-disease-which is silently and undramatically wasting our lives and our money. Canadians have shown how they can fight against a human foe. Disease is in our midst 

a far more dangerous enemy. In organizing to fight it we have everything to gain and nothing to lose. But we must develop in the minds of our citizens a sense of individual responsibility if nation "health-mindedness" is to be achieved.
It would appear that one person out of three dies ahead of his time of diseases that could be prevented. Canadian statistics dealing with sickness indicate that over half of all disabling illness could be prevented!
Sound, authentic estimates show that from two to three per cent of the population is continuously on the sick list. Of these, between 91 per cent and 96 per cent are ill enough to be disabled. So that about two per cent of our population is always too sick to work.
Public health officials agree that sickness costs the people of Canada over $311,000,000 a year. Almost nine-tenths of this is a direct charge upon the individual.
Later on the report, dealing with diphtheria and other diseases, states:
Diphtheria has killed 1,200 Canadians-mostly children-in a single year. Yet the toxoid treatment against diphtheria, if applied in a nation-wide drive against this disease, would completely wipe it out in a very few years.
Typhoid fever takes 1,111 lives annually. Yet during the Great war not one Canadian soldier died of typhoid. This is one of the most readily preventable of diseases. During the war, the authorities protected the lives of the troops by means within the reach of everyone. Are Canadian lives less valuable in peacetime?

Tuberculosis destroys about 7,764 Canadians every year. Yet with proper health machinery, it could be absolutely eliminated.
Cancer ends 7,912 Canadian lives every year. Periodic health examination frequently reveals this terrible destroyer in its incipient stages, when there is an excellent chance of curing it. Universal periodic health examination would make the cancer death rate dwindle sharply. The public must be led to conserve health by adopting the physical examination scheme.
Heart disease is responsible for the staggering total of 11,775 deaths a year in Canada. Periodic health examination frequently reveals the causes of heart disease, or the disease itself in its early stages.
Maternal mortality-1,295 mothers die each year in child-birth. Proper prenatal care would reduce this appalling total.
Venereal diseases-Canada's successful attack upon these diseases points the way to success in dealing with others. Thanks to a nationwide, well-organized and perpetual campaign against venereal diseases, recent surveys in Toronto and Winnipeg showed that these^ cities have the lowest incidence of venereal diseases of 17 cities in which similar surveys have been made on this continent. These rates will be still further reduced when the public attitude towards all diseases has been modernized by proper education and leadership.
At this point I would appeal to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mac-Laren). I understand that the dominion grant to the provinces has been discontinued. It has been the custom, for a number of years now to make a grant of some $200,000 a year to be divided among the various provinces to aid them in fighting the venereal evil. I have just quoted the results of this fight in Toronto and Winnipeg, and certainly they have been amazingly successful. This year apparently the government does not feel justified in making the grant. The discontinuance of the grant is a verjq very serious matter, and I appeal to the minister and to the government as a whole to continue the grant for another year. The pamphlet continues:
There is one solution. Periodic health examination-a periodic and thorough overhauling by a competent physician. To induce people to adopt this solution is a task demanding prompt and constant attention of health authorities, thoughtful citizens, and statesmen.
Disease strikes from coast to coast. It is a national menace and combating it a national problem. Dominion leadership is needed, because at present there is no uniformity of health management. In some places health is well safeguarded. in others, deplorably neglected. Cooperation between the dominion and the provinces in a concerted attack upon venereal disease has proven the value of maintaining a united front against disease. Not until this unity is achieved in attacking all diseases, can we expect a rapid change in the present unsatisfactory disease and mortality rates.

National Health-Mr. Howden
This brings me to the pith of my argument, which is that Canada should institute, either federally or with the cooperation of the provinces, a periodic health examination of the citizens, yearly or as often as may be found desirable, and that all illnesses discovered at such times or at any time should receive intelligent medical attention and treatment. I am willing to admit that this is a big order and there are many difficulties in the way. There is first the constitution, and it seems as though this can do or undo whatever the government in power may desire, and the people of Canada have nothing much to say. The men who made it have all passed on and I doubt if they are greatly concerned about the Canadian people at present. Meanwhile, we are here trying to live useful lives and to see that the greatest good for the greatest number pertains. If any government wished to provide periodic health examinations and sick treatment for the Canadian people, they could very soon find a way, the constitution notwithstanding. After all, parliament is allpowerful.
The matter of expense is preeminent. As stated before, the estimated cost of sickness in Canada is S311,000,000 annually, no doubt largely a direct charge. Even at that, many sick persons receive poor or indifferent attention while others are charged unfair and exorbitant fees. Many of those in remote districts are not able to receive professional treatment at all. The Endicott Johnson corporation, an American manufacturing concern, has a medical system by which it supplies complete medical care for its 16,000 workers and all their dependents. The cost of this service is .$400,000 annually, one and one quarter cents per pair of shoes turned out. The service must reach at least 30,000 souls, and it is extended to cover every medical attention from infancy to old age. The staff consists of twenty-seven whole-time physicians and includes one general surgeon, one eye specialist, two throat and nose specialists, one pediatrist or child specialist, three dentists, two pharmacists, one masseur, one X-ray technician and fifty-one trained nurses. They have also maternity hospitals, an isolation hospital, chemical and bacteriological laboratories and a convalescent home. It is hardly reasonable to compare a service of this kind with a system of state medicine where the cost might be greater or less, but supposing it was one-half greater, say $180,000,000 yearly, Canada's health bill would still be far below the estimated cost of $311,000,000 and certainly the benefits to be derived would warrant a greater 41761-84
cost than we have at present. Let me enumerate some of these benefits.
At present there are in Canada several thousand regularly qualified medical men and many other So-called doctors, in all probably a greater number than is actually required, many being of doubtful value or benefit. Under state medicine there would be just as many doctors, nurses, masseurs and druggists as were actually required and practitioners of doubtful value would be eliminated.
At present there are in many towns and cities more doctors than are needed, while many rural communities are entirely without medical service. Under state medicine every community would be part of some health district and the service would reach every family in the land.
At present doctors are competitors of each other and economic pressure makes professional ethics farcical and impossible, largely to the cost and undoing of the patient. Under state medicine there would be no need for ethics; professional cooperation would predominate.
At present doctors in general are poorly paid, fees are irregularly collected and the financial interferes constantly with the professional side. Under state medicine doctors would be paid suitable salaries commensurate with their ability and work. They would strive to secure advancement and would not be harassed with the anxiety of ill-health, a penniless old age or lack of income. These matters would be taken care of by the state.
At present the medical profession thinks the rich and well-to-do should pay for the services rendered to the poor, but the rich resent being penalized in this manner. Under state medicine all men, rich and poor alike, would receive the best we have to offer.
At present the people consult physicians only in the instance of a known or obvious ailment and often when the disease is well established. Under state medicine preventive medicine by periodic health examination would overcome this evil and would supplant largely the system of curative medicine now pertaining.
At present consultations with specialists are expensive and frequently too long delayed. Under state medicine consultations would be free and there would be no cause for delay. Suspected cases of cancer, tuberoulosis, and so . on, could be promptly diagnosed and given a chance of recovery.
At present people spend millions yearly in self-prescribed and counter-prescribed medicines, often of no value. Under state medicine there would be no patent medicines, nostrum or other drug traffic.



National Health-Mr. Howden
At (present the medical service is hindered by lack of public confidence, the economic interest of the doctor and the patient being largely opposed. Under state medicine the economic interest of the doctor and the patient would coincide and the service would give full confidence.
At present surgery is often employed only as a last resort and is denied the chance to do its best. Its use is denied to many because of the fees demanded, while others refuse it because of suspicion of the surgeon. Under state medicine surgery would be used where indicated and without delay because there would be no suspicion on the part of the public.
At present owing to lack of official control of surgeons and other specialists, a large number of unnecessary and more than pooriy performed operations are carried out, with a much larger death rate than should be the case. Under state medicine no incompetent man would be allowed to operate.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Who will decide?


John Power Howden: The decision probably
would be in the hands of a suitable board who would allow only such men to practise as were found to be fully qualified.
At present under haste in delivery, lack of proper knowledge and occasional contact with intercurrent infection causes the untimely death of many hundreds of mothers yearly. Under state medicine a woman would be delivered in a well-equipped lying-in hospital where no contact with other infection could occur. The work would be done by a specially trained obstetrician and haste would not be a factor. '	'
At present a doctor who is once qualified and licensed has a free hand to practice medicine as he likes. He may be negligent, reckless or utterly behind the times and still continue to practise with impunity. Under state medicine his work would be supervised by a board of examiners and he might be retired from the service because of ignorance and incompetency. He would not only have to pass his examinations but he would have to maintain his standing or drop out.
Lastly, at present any physician can announce himself as a specialist without having taken spocial training. Under state medicine no one would be permitted to pose as a specialist without first satisfying the board of examiners as to his qualifications.	*
These, Mr. Speaker, are some of the advantages to be gained by a system of state medicine. They by no means exhaust the list, but others are more or less intricate and technical and not of a nature to appeal to the chamber. I would, however, pause to rMr. Howden.]
say that the greatest benefits to accrue are that sickness would be largely nipped in the bud; that hundreds of cases of unsuspected, incipient or criminally hidden disease would be brought to light; that all would receive the best treatment and that the great mass of citizens who desire to pay and who do pay their way in life, would not be faced on every occasion of sickness in their homes with a money outlay that might cripple them financially for months or even years. A prominent doctor in Winnipeg said to me a few days ago that sickness caused an almost impossible expense, even in a doctor's home, where there are no doctor's bills to pay, and from this remark one can readily appreciate the position where a family is faced with a bill for medical attention in addition to other expenses.
I have no wish at this time to estimate the cost of illness, but I would venture the opinion that each birth in a family of moderate circumstances entails an expense ranging from $100 to S300; that a laparotomy, meaning an abdominal section, means an expense ranging around $500, and that few protracted cases get away with an expense of less than twice that amount. The disadvantages are of a dual nature: first, the difficulty, though not a very serious one, of divorcing people from the use of a family doctor; and, second, the difficulty of finding the best or even a satisfactory method of applying the principle. In the first case not much need be said. Family doctors are like family preachers. For one reason or another they are changed from time to time, and in the case of doctors, often by the family itself. If the Canadian people of either high or low degree find that they are being given careful, courteous and intelligent service, they will soon overcome their aversion to not having always the same family attendant. On the other hand, the more fastidious can always retain one man by prearrangement or some slight extra expense.
The second matter is not so easy of manipulation. It is not part of my responsibility in presenting the resolution to submit a plan of practical application. Parliament, as we are frequently told, is all powerful when its members are in complete accord. It is the business of the government to evolve means of applying principles adopted by the house, and I think a way can be found which could be worked out on a provincial or a federal, or, as with old age pensions, on a provincial and federal basis, preferably the latter. In any case there would have to be statutory legislation from the dominion house so as to create a uniform national system. Indeed, parliament

National Health-Mr. Howden
would have to do no more than create the machinery, the operation of which could be left to the provinces. In such a case, parliament would have to pay the cost or at least contribute a portion. Since parliament has power to collect taxes from any source or by any means and to allot them to whatever legal use seems wise, there should be no difficulty in this regard.
In discussing a similar resolution last session, the Prime Minister stated that to give practical application thereto would mean to sweep away at one stroke all existing medical service. Nothing was further from my thoughts. I claim that parliament, at a comparatively small cost, can provide for a periodic health examination of all the Canadian people, and, further, can furnish succour and medical aid in time of sickness without disturbing present conditions to any great extent. That the movement would ultimately eliminate present-day forms of service, as stated by the Prime Minister, and bring about a system by which the state would become the employer and the doctors the employed, I venture to hope and believe. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) stated in last year's debate that this effect would slowly come about by an extension of existing service units, but why wait for this in the face of the unsatisfactory condition existing at present? The health of the general public is one of the prime objects of statecraft, and the securing of it is tire duty of all.
If I may for a moment revert to the Prime Minister's remark on the occasion of the previous debate, I should like to say that after carefully reading his observations I decided that they hinged on three points of objection. The first was that the application was almost overnight. It seemed to me the objection was there would be a sweeping change from the present system of medicine to one whereby the state would become the employer and medical men would become the employees of the state. As a matter of fact, I cannot see any great reason why such a condition should not be brought about. That is really the idea of the resolution. But that such a condition could be brought about suddenly is very improbable, practically impossible and certainly most undesirable. A sudden change from one system to the other would undoubtedly cause a great deal of confusion, much unfairness to medical men throughout the country and probably a very poor service for a while. There is, however, no danger of such a change being brought about suddenly. My suggestion would be just to initiate a measure somewhat along the lines 41761-845
of the compensation board legislation, and I think the Prime Minister would see the people taking to it, as they say, like a cat to milk. If we can just make the start, the opening, I do not think we would have much trouble in educating the people to state medicine which would give them very much better service.
The second point was the destruction of medical initiative, destruction of the incentive that causes medical men to strive to excel in their work and lives. I wonder whether the Prime Minister knows that in most of the great European centres the men who have done the best work in research and who have blazed trails in medicine, pathology and surgery, the men who have accomplished the greatest successes, have quite frequently been so poor both before and after their successes that they have not been able to afford the ordinary comforts that obtain in the home of an artisan.
Not so very long ago I was talking to another medical man in Winnipeg who had just come back from a post-graduate course in Europe. He told me that he and a number of other men who were taking the same course one day were on their way to the hospital where the clinic was being held when they saw the man whom they expected to lecture to them in a few moments, trudging along the street carrying a parcel. They later learned that this man, although he worked about twelve hours a day at surgery, was a writer of some note, and was one of the most successful operators in Vienna, was actually too poor to take a tram and that he carried a lunch of bread and cheese to work every day. Just imagine one of the foremost teachers and operators in Vienna, probably in Europe, walking to work and carrying his lunch! I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman knows that an army officer, Ronald Ross, of the Royal Army Medical Corps, while receiving but small pay, discovered, by his initiative and effort alone, the cause of and freed the west coast of Africa from a disease that had rendered it well-nigh uninhabitable. Another officer of the British army, also on low pay, Leichman, during the South African war initiated research and developed a vaccine for typhoid fever which he perfected during the war, and so rid the army of this scourge which was killing the soldiers by the hundreds.
Here is an instance from the United States. After the construction of the Panama canal had been discontinued for over twenty years, Major Gorgas, an American army officer on small pay, went into the district and after a certain amount of investigation discovered the causative factor in the great death rake

National Health-Mr. Howden
from malaria in the canal zone. Work on the canal had been discontinued because men would not go in there and face the tragic death rate from malaria, but Gorgas discovered that mosquitoes were responsible for the transference of the malarial virus, and very soon he had treated the swamps and sluggish pools with oil and destroyed the mosquitoes, and thus made it possible for men to go in there and complete the building of the Panama canal. I mention these four instances, a noted teacher and professor in Vienna, and three humble army officers, who initiated and perfected these great works.
I do not think the right hon. the Prime Minister need have any fear of destroying the incentive to medical research. I do not believe that either he or all the legislators in all the legislatures and parliaments all over the world can ever destroy the initiative and incentive to medical research which springs from the desire of truly great men to learn the truth so that they can serve their fellow men.
The third point which the Prime Minister raised last year when a similar resolution was under discussion was that neither the doctors nor the people were ready for such a step. May I say this? It has been calculated that the average medical man in Canada and the United States earns an income of about $3,000 a year. Some, of course, run very much higher, some doctors earning from fifteen to twenty thousand a year, but the income of the average doctor is about three thousand dollars, and out of that he has to pay office costs, automobile expenses, and so on. In the United States at the present time the federal government employs several hundred doctors on a yearly basis. They start with a salary of 82,500 to $4,000; at the end of a number of three-year periods they are required to take examinations, and if they fail to pass they are dropped from the service a year later. If they pass the examinations successfully they eventually receive a salary of about $7,000. I think I can speak for the medical men of this country, Mr. Speaker, when I say that if they could figure on a permanent yearly salary of anywhere from $5,000 to $7,000, they would be ready to go into a salaried scheme of this kind.
The matter has been taken up by provincial governments and medical societies all over Canada. Quite recently the local medical association in the city of Winnipeg, where I grew up, and to which I largely belong, took this matter up and the local government is investigating it at the present time. The medical association of Manitoba found nothing to object to in this scheme after having
(Mr. Howden.]
investigated it, and they submitted to the provincial government a series of principles which they think ought to be followed.
I shall not detain the house by reading them. I merely wish to state that the medical association is fully in accord with a movement of this kind and would be glad to see it brought about. I should like to read again the words of the Prime Minister-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman's
time has expired.


Mr. G. D. STANLEY (East Calgary):: May I congratulate the hon. gentleman (Mr. Howden) upon his very excellent presentation of the argument from his standpoint in regard to state medicine. His resolution as it appears on the order paper reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration steps which would:	(a) provide for
periodic medical examination of the Canadian people; (b) afford medical relief for those suffering from disease.
A rather interesting application of the provisions of the first section of this resolution as applied to a legislative body may be found in the records of the legislative assembly of upper Canada back in 1810, when there was a very early application of state examination applied to certain legislators in that assembly. On March 2, 1810, they were checking up on some of the absentee legislators from the assembly. May I read the record as it appears?
March 2, 1810:
On motion of Mr. M'Lean, seconded by Mr. Gough, resolved that the Speaker be directed to order medical assistance to attend on Benjamin Mallory, Philip Sovereign, Joseph Willcocks, John Roblin, John Wilson, and James Wilson, and report the state of their health at the bar of this hon. house.
The Speaker, having put the question, a division took place; the names being called for. they were taken down and are as follows:
"Yeas-Messrs. M'Nabb, Frazer, Burritt, Marcel, M'Gregor, Baby, M'Lean, Gough, Elliott, G. Wilson, and Secord.
"Nays-Messrs. Howard. Rogers and Lewis.
"The Speaker did then order Doctors Richardson and Lee to visit those gentlemen and inquire into the state of their health, and report the same to the house as soon as possible.
"Doctors Richardson and Lee came to the bar of this house and did acquaint the Speaker that, in obedience to his orders, they had called at the lodgings of several of the members absent from this house, in consequence of indisposition. and have the honour of making a written report on the state of health of Joseph Will-cocks. James Wilson. John Wilson and John Roblin. Esq's., which report is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, we have seen and examined Mr. Willcocks. Mr. James Wilson, Mr. John Roblin and Mr. John Wilson; are of opinion from Mr. Willcocks' statement, and from his

National Health-Mr. Stanley
present state, that it would not be proper for him to attend the house this day. Mr. James Wilson states that he has taken medicine this morning: but we think (if it is absolutely necessary) he might attend in his place. The other two gentlemen complain very much, but have taken no medicine. We think they might come to the house. Whether they would be able to remain, 'tis impossible to say. Those gentlemen all say they think they will be able to attend to-morrow. We are of the same opinion.- (Signed) R. Richardson, W. Lee."
Mr. Speaker, if such examinations were made of absentees from this house hon. members might find it very inconvenient. I am sure the hon. gentleman will not press his resolution that far.
The general question of the socialization of medicine is very interesting and important. When one goes back over the history of the development of scientific medicine, and the application of socializing efforts made by the state and the medical profession, one comes to the conclusion that in the present state at which it has arrived scientific medicine must not stand still. We cannot stay where we are; we cannot go back; we must go forward. The development of scientific medicine in our country must proceed; there is no question about that. In our minds the ideal condition is one when all citizens shall have available to them all that is necessary in scientific medicine to relieve their ailments. For many years such an ideal has been before our minds. In fact if we go back to the early days of history, back to the prophet Isaiah, we find he said:
There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days; for the child shall die an hundred years old.
Since that ideal was set up progress was very slow. During the last fifty years however great strides have been taken; we have an ideal towards which we may direct our efforts. Many difficulties, with which I shall deal as I go along, stand in the way.
May I say first and foremost that in regard to scientific medicine and all that the term includes, jurisdiction rests exclusively within the realm of the provincial legislatures. Therefore to-day, despite what the hon. gentleman opposite may have said a few moments ago, while state medicine may promote an academic discussion of an educative nature that is worthy of a place in this house, legislation in this regard must rest with the legislatures of the various provinces.
I think the general statement is contained in the two clauses of the resolution now before us. Scientific medicine as we have it to-day might very properly be divided under two
headings, namely preventive and curative. True, to a very considerable extent they overlap, but in a general sense the division is correct. State medicine, using the term broadly, implies that all the health activities which could be extended by the state, whether they be of a preventive or of a curative type, should be extended as a public utility. That, I presume, would be a fair definition of the term "state medicine." However, as the term is used frequently both in private conversation and on public platforms, it carries an entirely different meaning. It is almost always confined to the curative side and overlooks the preventive. Conversations and addresses from platforms would seem to imply that the state has some mythical bottomless purse from which funds may be supplied to give to the citizens everything in medicine for which they may ask. On the other hand infrequent mention is made of taxes or contributions necessary to pay for such services rendered.
Personally I am in favour of state medicine, have always said so and still say so. I refer however to state medicine following a safe and sane progressive program built upon the firm foundation laid during the years. I am not in favour of any undertaking which would ignore what the state has done in years past. I am not in favour of "kicking over the checkerboard" and entering into some mysterious experimentation, but am in favour of that which is safe, progressive and working towards an ideal.
When we consider the question of jurisdictions what do we find? The provinces in this dominion have authority to deal with any of the health activities, either of individuals, groups, organizations, societies or municipalities-in fact, all the health activities are within the jurisdiction of provincial legislation. Therefore the proposals embodied in the resolution certainly come within the jurisdiction of the provinces. Health measures undertaken by the federal government are of a restricted nature, dealing mainly with the administration of the opium and Narcotic Drug Act, of pure food laws, proprietary medicine acts, the examination of immigrants, marine hospitals, and the administration of grants given to certain eleemosynary organizations. Whether federal health activities can be extended is a matter which in a few moments we will consider.
In a general way preventive medicine, as we understand it, is almost exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state, whether it be the municipality, the province or the dominion. Preventive measures which are taken by

National Health-Mr. Stanley
various health organizations, having to do with groups of individuals, belong exclusively to the state. Heretofore, speaking in a general way again, curative medicine, which is that part of medicine which brings the physician into close and intimate relationship with his patient, has been left almost entirely to the individual physician. In a very general way that has been the position in the application of scientific medicine in Canada.
What have been the activities of the state, in general terms? They have been preventive, of course, dealing with groups of individuals, with sanitation, with food and water inspection, with the inspection of schools and school children, with the administration of health regulations, with the questions of quarantine and isolation, with the administration of hospitals, with medical education, with nursing training and other activities of this nature. Last but not least it has to do with what we might call pure science in connection with scientific medicine, or in other words the scientific medical research work carried on in our hospitals and universities. I think all these can be very properly included in the activities of the state; so when we talk about state medicine I think it unfair for us to leave aside all that the state is doing with so much success and such energy and at such great cost, giving the people to understand that the state has not been doing anything and that it should launch out into a new line of activity which heretofore has not been included in the term "state medicine."


Jean-François Pouliot: I am following my hon.
friend very closely, and I wonder if he would be kind enough to tell us if in his province there are county sanitary units.


George Douglass Stanley: I will come to that in a few moments. The result has been that the state has specialized in removing the causes of sickness and decreasing the number of cases of sickness throughout the country, and in this work the state has met with very considerable success. I should like to quote just a few statistics to show how much has been accomplished during the last thirty years, which is the length of time I have been privileged to practise medicine. I was interested to find out just what has been done in this regard, and I find that in that period of time the mortality in cases of typhoid fever has been reduced from 313 in a million of the population to 16 in a million of the population, and during the last two or three years I think it has been almost completely eliminated. In measles the mortality has been reduced from 134 in a million of the poplation to 25; in

tuberculosis it has been reduced from 1,754 in a million of the population to 647; in scarlet fever it has been reduced from 96 in a million of the population to 19. As a matter of fact, if you consider any age period up to sixty-five you will find that during the past thirty years the mortality has been very considerably reduced. In the period under five years of age it has been cut in two, and in the period from twenty-five to thirty-five it has been reduced until now, in relation to the previous mortality, it stands as six does to ten. To summarize the mortality from all diseases, in that period of time it has been reduced from 17,195 in a million of the population to 12,343. So, as a matter of fact, preventive medicine and its application by the state has reduced mortality and brought about a remarkable saving of life throughout the country.
Now I should like to go one step further and say that the best authorities are thoroughly convinced that the progress which will be made in scientific medicine and in the reduction of mortality will be made in preventive medicine to a very large extent. So we have this situation, that while some progress has been made in curative medicine, the outstanding success in scientific medicine is that which has resulted in the reduction of mortality which has been effected by the preventive measures handled almost exclusively by the state. In the next fifty years we look to the state to accomplish, through preventive medicine, almost all that will be accomplished. No doubt there will be some advance in the line of curative medicine, but not the advance we might hope for.
There we have the situation. The fact, then, is that the state has concentrated upon preventive measures and has met with success. Naturally we must ask this question: Will or can the state-using that word to include all health activities and all state agencies- continue to concentrate on preventive medicine if it divides its efforts and undertakes curative work? I am not answering that question; I am simply bringing it up for your consideration. More than that, can the state undertake to keep up the preventive work it has been carrying on, and in which we look forward to great advances? Can the state continue to finance those obligations and at the same time undertake to finance the curative work of which the hon. member has been speaking? If the state is to divide its activities, or to divide the finances presently used in the work, it will mean disaster to the splendid work that has been done and is to be done in preventive measures. That is a

National Health-Mr, Stanley
question we will have to decide, but it cannot be decided in this house in a legislative way. It must be decided by the taxpayers and contributors in the various provinces. So While we are discussing this academically, and in a profitable way I believe, at the same time we must leave to the various provinces the answers to these questions.
Now, let us look into the possibilities of the future. There is a very promising outlook for preventive medicine. There are some great obligations for the state to undertake. I shall not attempt to outline all of them. I shall deal with two or three only. For instance, heart disease; I have already given some statistics which demonstrate what the state has already done in the reduction of mortality from various causes. Unfortunately when we come to diseases of the heart we find that the mortality figures have been getting progressively worse and worse. The same remark applies to cancer, and this disease is now receiving very serious consideration from scientific medicine. Diseases of the heart is the greatest single cause of deaths in our country. Unfortunately the mortality, as I say, is increasing each year. One out of every seven deaths is the result of some disease of the heart. Two persons out of every hundred have this disease. In the .examination of recruits for the United States army three out of every hundred were found to suffer from this disease. In 1929 pneumonia caused 1,430 deaths, cancer 960, tuberculosis 930, diseases of the heart 2,664 to the .million of population. Going back over the thirty years to which I have already referred, in 1900 the mortality from diseases of the heart was 1,374 to the million of population; during that period the mortality has almost doubled.-2,664 to the million of population.
I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman who has introduced the resolution (Mr. Howden) desires that some effort should be made to broaden out the federal Department of Health by co-ordinating the activities of the Provincial Departments of Health. In that I am quite prepared to agree with him. I make this suggestion. Here are two diseases, the mortality from which is increasing by leaps and bounds. What is required in this country is not so much treatment of individual cases, but Tather a broad national coordination in respect to all the cases throughout the country. Then take cancer; scientific medicine has not yet located the cause of this disease, but certain very important principles of treatment have been laid down which give promise of considerable assistance in the control of this disease.
Here is a field for preventive medicine during the next few years. The Canadian medical association, in common with similar associations in other countries, is undertaking to make a national survey in regard to cancer. All members, I am sure, have been keeping in touch with the work in the various provinces, including Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The trouble is that so far there has been no correlation of data, no clinical information of any value to those who are trying to determine what steps may be taken to overcome the increasing mortality. The same remark applies to diseases of the heart. We -can 'divide heart diseases broadly into three groups: first, that which we understand fairly well and know how to treat; second, that which is debatable among the profession; third, that of which the profession knows very little or practically nothing. I am sorry to say the third is the largest class, and a class in which the mortality is thought to be increasing. Clinical data is very badly needed, data that may be correlated so that it may be of practical use in a national way in our efforts to find successful preventive treatment for this disease.
May I point out that the federal department of Health can very well broaden the scope of its operations along these lines. For instance, we find certain information sadly lacking. We want to know: What are the causes of these diseases of the heart that are increasing so rapidly? What are the various types of these diseases? What is the natural history of each individual type? Which of these types is preventable? How is it preventable? Which of these types is increasing, and why is it increasing? What are the regional distributions of all the various types of this disease? What has climate to do with diseases of the heart, and what types are affected by various climates? What is the proper treatment for these diseases? What is vocational guidance accomplishing? What influence have social and economic surroundings on these diseases? This and other information has never been brought together. Scientific men who are enthusiastic about promoting the overcoming of this great cause of mortality in our country are thoroughly convinced that the greatest necessity is the bringing together from all the hospitals in all sections of the country, from all universities, from all medical men, even those located in the most outlying regions, the fullest information in a uniform way. The efforts of the departments of health could be extended along this line.

National Health-Mr. Stanley
May I give one illustration to emphasize this point? During the period of the war when the United States undertook to bring together large numbers of their soldiers to send overseas, an influenza epidemic started and ran rampant through the camps. A large number of those who had influenza developed pneumonia, and many of those who had pneumonia developed empyema, or pus in the pleural cavity of the lung. In many cases the usual operation was performed but resulted in an alarmingly high mortality; so much so that a commission of skilled surgeons and physicians was appointed to find out what could be done to reduce this terrific toll. The advantage which this commission had was that these men were grouped together in the camps under the closest survey, their case histories were available and the coordinated and correlated efforts of all the physicians were before the commission. The result was that in a few weeks it discovered just exactly where the difficulty lay and when and how an operation could be successfully performed. The mortality rate dropped immediately to what had been considered before as the normal rate. I will not go into the details other than to point out the significance of the work of that commission in regard to this one disease.
This is what medical and scientific men want in regard to heart diseases. The cases are spread all over the country and isolated, but the information should be brought together and correlated, so that correct conclusions could be reached, and made available to the profession. This work could be undertaken by our federal department of health, as far as its guidance and financial burden is concerned.
After all, the greatest cause of sickness is poverty. We have here an economic problem which cannot be overcome by treating those *who are sick. For illustration; a village may be overtaken with an epidemic of typhoid fever because the water supply is contaminated; it may be humanitarian for the state to send in a physician to treat each individual case, but it would be vastly more humanitarian for the state to send in its sanitary men to purify the water supply. The state's activities should be directed towards removing the causes of disease, and poverty is the greatest. As St. Augustine said: Thou givest bread to the hungry; but better were it that none hungered, and that thou had'st none to give him.
The Registrar General of England and Wales recently divided the deaths during the past year into five groups-employers, foremen, skilled workmen, unskilled workmen and com-

mon labourers. In general terms, he found that the mortality from all diseases was fifty per cent higher in groups four and five than it was in groups one and two. In the case of tuberculosis and pneumonia, the acute and chronic diseases of the lungs, the index figure for groups one and two runs from 40 to 80 while the index figure for groups four and five runs from 110 to 160. Poverty, unemployment and disease are not three problems; they are one problem or three aspects of the same problem.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman's
time has expired.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house is one of vital importance to any state. I may not have the time at my disposal to state my reasons, but I must say I am wholly in accord with the conclusions of the last speaker (Mr. Stanley), namely, that this motion as it stands at present will not rectify the situation we have to-day. It is perhaps a step in the right direction, containing as it does the suggestion of a better medical service for the people at large. I think it was Disraeli who said that "public health is the foundation of the happiness of the people and the power of that state."
If we look back over what has been accomplished by the medical profession as a whole and by the state, I think we must come to the conclusion that our present position hardly could have been reached or attained under a state system of medicine. A state system of medicine can be defined as a system approved of or supported by federal, provincial and municipal authorities; we are in that position to-day and we have not attained the success we would have liked to attain.
The history of medicine show's that man to-day is in the same position in which he was some 350,000 years ago; man's paramount thought is to search for health, and this he has been doing for thousands and thousands of years. There is no question that when man came upon this earth he found the causes of disease here to meet him, and from that day to this he had been in constant contact and conflict with disease and has made a continuous effort to overcome it. The accumulation of man's experience in this fight against disease has been written down and we should take care now that a similar situation will not arise in the future as has arisen in the past.
It is thousands of years since man first laid down systems of sanitation and medical science. We are not the first people who

National Health-Mr. Ross
have faced this situation. Five or six thousand years before Christ there were systems of medicine; there was state medicine. The Assyrians in their time had a system of state medicine under which free attendance, free service was given to the people at large, and we are just about coming to that situation to-day. But what they had accomplished thousands of years ago was practically wiped out by one great event, the fall of the Roman Empire; when the Goths and Visigoths came down upon what was the civilized world, at one fell stroke they wiped out all that was then known of medicine. The libraries, the accumulation of knowledge, were destroyed, and humanity went down into a thousand years of the deepest and grossest system of magic, mystery and superstition. After that what happened? Plagues and epidemics swept over the world. Italy at one time lost half of her population; Florence, with a population of 130,000, lost 100,000; France lost three-quarters of her population; Germany lost 1,240,000; England lost half her population and only about one out of every ten in London survived those epidemics. Such was the situation that prevailed without a system of medicine.
But just after this thousand years of darkness we leaped at once into three centuries of the finest invention and the greatest progress the world has ever seen. That brings us to the situation we have to-day. From the sixth to the sixteenth century we had all these plagues and epidemics. Then following the sixteenth century there was for three centuries the most wonderful progress in the development of medicine. The eighteenth century saw a development of magnificent hospitals, without which we would never have attained to what we have to-day. We had Westminster hospital in 1720; Guy's in 1727; London in 1740, and Middlesex in 1745. In that one hospital, Guy's, there were discovered three diseases: Addison's, Bright's and Hodgkin's.
The heather then was afire with the formation of those hospitals and the medical science developed rapidly. I should like to point out to the mover of the resolution (Mr. Howden) and to the house that the question is not so much what you will accomplish by the proposal as it is a matter of eliminating, if you insist on a system of state medicine, the possibility of the discovery of things that have produced the wonderful medical development so far attained. Virchow lifted pathology to a high place and led to the fight against a bacilli and bacteria. In the old days the idea was that through the will of God certain demons entered the body; to-day we know
that it is certain bacilli that have caused the trouble. The discovery of that was due to pathology. Then there was the discovery of the microscope, which gave another great impetus to medical science and stimulated the investigations into the development of animal life. The discovery of the microscope brought about the germ theory. From the germ theory we had at once the discovery of anthrax and hydrophobia by Louis Pasteur, the tubercle bacillus by Robert Koch, syphilis by Paul Ehrlich, and, in our day, diabetes and insulin by Banting. These discoveries gave the medical service such an impetus that the medical men are now in the position that they are challenging youth to give them the opportunity of preventing sickness and disease. The few men I have mentioned have made it possible for the medical profession of today to say to every country: Here we are, ready to prevent disease from overcoming your people. So Disraeli was well informed when he said: Public health is the foundation of the happiness of the people and the power of the state. That is the position in which we are to-day. We have all these discoveries: the X-ray, the microscope, the knowledge of the germ theory, the preventives against germs, and we have them ready for the service of the people.
How can we give the people the benefit of this medical service? The mover of the resolution had in mind the fact that in the last three centuries medical science has developed to such an extent that, with the exception of two or three diseases mentioned by the last speaker, we can challenge any disease there is. In the face of such wonderful things as the medical profession has to offer, what have we in the way of organization to deal with conditions? The last speaker has referred to many things. Let us study this organization, just as the hon. gentleman has suggested. Some have said: Well, this is a provincial matter; what is the province doing? I think you can sum it up by saying that as a matter of organization it is a horrible mess. The provinces look after hospitals, clinics, drug stores, laboratories of all sorts; health departments of many industrial firms; private organizations, tuberculosis associations, visiting nurses' societies, maternal clinics, infants' welfare, venereal diseases. The provinces control public health in the way of communicable diseases, collection of vital statistics, water supply, disposal of waste and sewage, diagnostic laboratories, inspection of factories, state of medical colleges. The federal department control the inspection of food markets, narcotics, immigra-
National Health-Mr. Ross

tion inspection, army and navy medical stores, and marine service. Surely it must be admitted that this incongruous mess in what is called state control or assistance is very unsatisfactory in the face of the wonderful discoveries to which I have referred.
What is the answer? What can we do? I agree with the last speaker that we cannot by any such resolution as this, calling for state medicine and the examination of individuals, accomplish very much. If you want to inaugurate a system of state medicine that will bring every physician under the control of the state, then I contend that you will wipe out the great discoveries I have mentioned- the invention of the microscope and all the appliances that are now available. The physician to-day finds himself in the position of being unable to give to the people all the services they should have in the war against disease. We cannot with just one resolution come to the ideal situation. The mover of this resolution (Mr. Howden) deserves the commendation of the house for bringing before it such an important question, but I do not see that such a system as he advocates would be practical. I believe that to-day we have in the federal Department of Health the nucleus which would enable us to take the next step, and that is the coordination of all the forces in the state which are contending against disease. There should be some control of these forces, which now are like comets, flying through the air and getting nowhere. If there was a department with power to take all these different agencies in hand and coordinate the forces that are at work in the activities directed against disease, we could accomplish a great deal for our people. We could endeavour to coordinate the industrialists who are finding it to their advantage to put into practice some of the theories that have been advanced, and coordinate also the private capitalists who might wish to place at the disposal of the state for the welfare of the people the money that would help in this great work.
What is the use of going on as we are at the present time? The province of Ontario is engaged in a fight by itself against cancer. In the army, in the last great war, we came to this conclusion. In the early stages we would send a battalion to attack. Then we got a little stronger and said: We will try a brigade. If that was useless and we were losing men, we would try a division, and finally we got to the stage where we sent in a whole army. If you are going to attack anything, attack it with all the forces that are 
available, and there should be some power in this country that should be able to coordinate all the forces that are now available and concentrate them upon an attack, a cannonade on this one objective.
The situation to-day so far as the British North America Act is concerned is antiquated. Preventive medicine is no longer a provincial or a municipal matter. The speed of transportation is such that an epidemic can spread very rapidly, and yet we are perhaps attacking this thing as they would have done in that thousand years of darkness which I pictured. The only protection from disease that people had then was flight, and kings, 'legislators, aldermen and physicians, all took advantage of it. What was the result? Their flight only spread the disease further. In those days they had no protection other than separation and isolation, but to-day we have science. Nevertheless the development of transportation has made the possibility of the spread of disease greater than it ever was before. For instance, in South Africa in a little tribe of three hundred thousand people a disease known as sleeping sickness developed which wiped out that whole tribe, and in a few short years, owing to the ease with which people can move about, the disease had spread all over the world. To-day an epidemic can be spread across this continent in a very few days, so that the question of prevention is no longer a provincial one. It has developed into the larger question of federal protection. Here in the federal government we have a department which perhaps we do not think very much of, but which nevertheless covers all the work I have mentioned, and in it we have the nucleus of a department than can be of great use to our people. This is not only a national question, but an individual one. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that at the time of the Roman Empire the expectation of life was only about twenty-one years? To put it in the language of the scientific man, a child born at the time of the Roman Empire had a prognosis of life of twenty-one years. Let us trace that expectation of life down through the ages. In the dark ages the expectation of life was twenty years; in the sixteenth century, twenty-one; in the seventeenth century, twenty-six; in the eighteenth century, thirty-five; in the eighteenth century and a half, forty; in the nineteenth to the twentieth century, fifty. The expectation of life, according to insurance companies, has reached the high point to-day of from fifty to fifty-one years. So this question is not only of national but of individual importance. Every man should be glad to

National Health-Mr. MacLaren
know that this prognosis of life has been more than doubled since the time of the Roman Empire.
The situation to-day is this: the medical profession finds itself in the position that it is no longer able to give the people the benefit of the wonderful discoveries that have been made in the last three centuries, and the hospitals are finding it a difficult matter. As the mover of the resolution says, perhaps in the very near future it must devolve upon the governments of this country, provincial and federal, to provide a better medical service to the people than they have had in the past. My conclusion is, with regard to the latter part of the resolution at least, that it is our duty to provide medical service and to prevent disease, and that can be done only by the coordination of all the forces that are now at work fighting against disease and which are responsible for the wonderful progress that has been made up to this time.
Hon. MURRAY MaeLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health): I think that a number of members proposed to take part in this discussion, but time is unfailingly moving on and unfortunately we in the house shall not have the benefit of hearing them speak on this important subject. The mover of the resolution (Mr. Howden) has proved his faith and enthusiasm by again bringing forward this year the subject of state medicine. One must recognize that the object of his speech to-night, as it was of his speech of last year, is the amelioration of the health of our citizens. We appreciate the truth and the importance of the hon. member's statements regarding health. We recognize that good health is a boon, and we are familiar with its full meaning. On the other hand we know the distress, the grief, the loss and all the disastrous consequences that are wrought by disease. Therefore anything we can think of to add to the health of the nation and curtail disease is worthy of our best effort and attention.
The hon. member for St. Boniface has in his resolution brought forward two distinct propositions. One is the periodic examination of the people, and the other the provision of medical treatment for those requiring it. May I say first that periodic examination is a big question, and I would say the same about the provision for medical treatment. I cannot help thinking that the mover might have proceeded with one phase of the matter and left the other until a later time. Little by little is a sound motto in matters pertaining to health and medicine. However, his enthusiasm
has induced him to bring both measures before us.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that I am not aware of any country which has adopted a system of periodic examinations. I know of no country on the face of the earth where such examinations are made. I do not argue that for that reason we in Canada should not think of attempting such examinations, but I do suggest that the course adopted by other countries should make us pause. We find countries in Europe leading in scientific advancement which have not adopted the principle set out in the resolution. Those countries, have done magnificent work, yet I can think of no place where periodic examinations have been adopted. I learn that a London physician named Dobell-I believe we are all familiar with the Dobell solution-about seventy years ago proposed periodic examinations.


John Power Howden: I should like at this point to interrupt the minister. I suggest to him that in many provinces of Canada there is periodic health examination. In those provinces there are district health nurses who make primary examinations, and in cases where diseases are found a doctor is called. That is a provincial matter.
Mr. MaeLAREN: Quite so. My point, however, was that there was no state, in the broad sense of the term, where these examinations have been adopted. Two years ago periodic examinations were suggested by the Canadian Medical Association and as a result four life insurance companies adopted the suggestion. They were assisted by the Canadian Medical Association, and the federal Department of Pensions and National Health provided literature. The result was that the Canada Life, the Sun Life, the London Life and the Confederation Life are now carrying out at their own expense periodic medical examination on their risks. However that is a very long way from the country at large accepting such a program.
After all we must to a considerable extent begin with ourselves, and examinations must be voluntary. I should like to ask how many hon. members in this chamber undergo periodic medical examinations. At the present time many people in Canada are aware of the benefits to be derived from such examinations, but I venture to say a very small percentage take advantage of them. I am simply pointing out, however, that the procedure suggested
Income Tax Exemptions

by the resolution has not been followed by other countries, and that enormous organization, effort and expense would be required.
I am afraid time will not allow me to go further into detail. I should like to indicate however that although this is a matter which might well be brought to the attention of hon. members and the country generally, it does not lie within the purview or jurisdiction of the federal government; the provinces are wholly responsible, and I cannot help but think that in the end they will hasten the advancement of the suggestions brought forward by the mover of the resolution.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 22, 1932