1934-02-12

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Humphrey Mitchell be substituted for that of Mr. Henri Bourassa on the joint committee on the restaurant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 11, respecting Prudential Trust Company Limited.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 12, respecting patents on certain inventions of which Duplate Safety Glass Company of Canada, Limited, is entitled to the benefit.

Mr. Lawson.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. EUSEBE ROBERGE (Megantic) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the table of the house a petition from the municipality of Plessisville which reads as follows:
At a general meeting of the municipal council of Plessisville, held on the 5th day of February, 1934, under the chairmanship of His Worship Mayor Eudore Fournier, and at which were present the following councillors:


Mr. SPEAKER (Text):: Will the hon. member state just what the petition is?


Eusèbe Roberge: Mr. Speaker, petitions are circulated in the counties on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, requesting the government to levy a tax of 20 cents per pound on leaf tobacco, sold directly, or indirectly by dealers to consumers. The petition of the municipality of Plessisville protests against such a taxation. I beg to lay also on the table of the house two more petitions bearing on the same subject, one from St. Anastasie de Nelson, Megantic county, The other from St. Methode d'Adstoek, Beauce county.



PRIVILEGE-MR. WILLIS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ERRICK F. WILLTS (Souris):	Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. Hansard of Friday, February 9, at page 440, reports the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) as using the following words with regard to myself:
He knows his statement is fallacious and misleading to the highest degree.
I refer Your Honour to standing order 41 and for your reference I quote paragraph 297 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, as follows:
The imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged, misrepresenting the language of another, or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation, charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind; all these are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference.
I submit that the words used by the hon. member for Macdonald come directly under that part of paragraph 297 which states, " the imputation of bad motives, or motives different from those acknowledged, misrepresenting the language of another," and I ask therefore that the statement be withdrawn and that it be expunged from Hansard.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Without doubt the words, " he knows his statement is fallacious and misleading to the highest degree " are unparliamentary. It is not unparliamentary to contradict a statement made by another hon. member when an hon. member disagrees with him but it is not parliamentary to accuse another hon. member of wilfully making an incorrect statement. I ask the hon. member
Unemployment Relief

for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) to withdraw these words and I ask the house to consent to their being struck out of the record.


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, I readily acquiesce in your request but I hardly think that my words were misplaced in any sense at the time.


Mr. WILLIS:: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to know if that is a withdrawal?


An hon. MEMBER:: Do you want him to go down on his knees?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. member should make an unequivocal withdrawal.


William Gilbert Weir: I do.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, on January 29, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) the following question:
Mr. Speaker, is the government aware of the action taken recently by the medical profession of the city of Winnipeg with respect to medical services formerly afforded families on relief? If so, in the event of other means failing, will they intercede on behalf of these people and see that they are afforded proper medical services.
I received this answer from the Prime Minister:
Mr. Speaker, representatives of the medical profession met me in Ottawa some weeks ago, and later a communication was sent to them indicating that there was no reason to believe that the provinces would not discharge their constitutional duties with respect to the health of their citizens. That point has been stated and restated so often it is difficult to understand why a question should be asked with respect to it.
Recent conditions locally, particularly in the city of Winnipeg, indicate that the provincial government of Manitoba has declined to share any portion of the burden of medical attention to these families on relief. May I therefore restate my question to the Prime Minister and ask if the government is prepared to intercede on behalf of these people and see that they are given reasonable medical attention?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The federal government has no power to compel a provincial government to discharge its constitutional duties.
JMr. Speaker.!



BANKING LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose) :: A Canadian Press dispatch in this morning's paper states:
Banking legislation occupied the Dominion government almost exclusively at a three hour session of cabinet council Saturday, and it is anticipated the bills to authorize establishment of a central bank, and to revise the Bank Act, will be brought into the House of Commons this week.
Several conferences between Prime Minister R. B. Bennett and Hon. E. N. Rhodes, Minister of Finance, and officials of the Canadian Bankers' Association have taken place in the past fortnight and the draft bill has been revised several times since it was printed.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member proceed to ask his question?


William Thomas Lucas: That is all I wish to quote. I want to ask the Prime Minister, because I do not want to give a wrong interpretation to the article, is this Bank Act being revised and the legislation for a central bank being drafted to suit the bankers only or are other interests being considered?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman was as assiduous in the discharge of bis duties as in endeavouring to make unnecessary trouble it would 'be really better for this country.



RADIO CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: I have received telegrams and letters from the territory on the Canadian National railway between Prince Rupert and Jasper in regard to radio reception and interference. I took the matter up with the chairman of the radio commission, Mr. Charlesworth, and he referred me to the minister. The people out in that territory would like to have an inspector go over that section of the country and see for himself the difficulties and hear the grievances which the people have with respect to radio reception. The territory comprises 700 miles, and I think it would be well if an inspector were sent out to size up the situation for himself. There has never been an inspector over that territory, and I think it is about time one should go there.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: In answer to the hon. member for Skeena I shall be pleased to look into the matter immediately, and if at all possible the nearest inspector will be sent out there to make a general survey of the whole situation.


Olof Hanson: Thank you.

Questions



SEED FOR ONTARIO FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Before the orders of the day are called may I make a brief inquiry of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). In view of the sympathetic consideration that has been given to stricken agriculturists throughout the country from time to time, I would ask what is the policj'' of the government with resipect to farmers in western Ontario who are without seed and without funds to purchase seed?
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I think the hon. member realizes that that is a question for the provincial government.


Mr. GOTT:: It has not been a question for the provincial government in days long since past.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. POULIOT:: Will the parliamentary indemnity of the hon. the Postmaster General and his annual allocation of $2,000 for automobile be paid him during his trip to Cairo, Egypt?


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I say that the only
answer that can be given to this question is that the case will be dealt with as all similar cases heretofore have been dealt with under the practice of parliament.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAHWAY LOAN
Mr. POWER:: To what extent was the Canadian Pacific Railway indebted to the Bank of Montreal for loans or advances made by the said bank to the company at the time:	(a) when the
Canadian Pacific Railway Company requested the government to guarantee a loan of sixty million dollars; (h) at the time of the passing of the order in council which actually guaranteed the said loan?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I indicated the other
day, I think, that this was an improper question. I am bound to say that with respect to the private business of the railway company and the bank this government is not informed except in the course of conversations in a general sort of way when matters are under consideration. With respect to the guarantee, it was known that there was an indebtedness to the bank, but I do not think we should be asked here to indicate what the relations are between a bank and its customers when such information comes to the knowledge of the government under those conditions.


PARCEL EXPRESS RATES '
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	What was the rate per pound in 1930 for the transportation by express of parcels of the following weights: 1 pound, 5 pounds, 10 pounds, 15 pounds, and 20 pounds?
2.	What is the present rate for these parcels for transportation by express over a distance of 200 miles?


Mr. MANION:: The hon. gentleman can
get' this information just as well from the express companies, but if he wishes us to do it for him I have no particular objection. But I think it is hardly necessary to put the question on the order paper.
Question dropped.


GASPE BIOLOGICAL STATION
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Fisheries to open a biological station and school in the Gaspe peninsula; if so, when and at what place?
2.	Will this school be independent of other stations or merely a sub-station?
3.	Have representations been made that suitable professors can be supplied by universities in the province of Quebec, and will effect be given to such representations?
4.	Has His Excellency Mgr. Ross, of Gaspe, made any representations to the Minister or the government on this subject, and what answer was given him?
5.	Have any negotiations taken place between the minister or the government and the government of Quebec or any of its ministers or officials, on this subject, and what has been the result of such negotiations?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do submit, Mr. Speaker, that this question should not be asked in the form in which it is, especially by a distinguished parliamentarian who has been in the chair. The intention of the government is made known by legislation or by provision in the Estimates, and it is hardly proper to ask through a question on the order paper what the intention of the government may be, and when that intention, which is purely problematical, as indicated by the question, may be made effective.
Question dropped.


JACQUES CARTIER CELEBRATION
Mr. MARCIL:: What action does the government intend taking to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the landing of Jacques Cartier at Gaspe?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is in the same position as the previous question.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LOAN
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	By whom, and if a company, by what officer, and on what date, was the government
Questions

[DOT]solicited to guarantee the loan of $60,000,000 made by the Canadian Pacific Railway?
2.	Before the adoption of the order in council of November 29, 1933, guaranteeing the loan of $60,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway, did the government, or one of its members, ask the banks to contribute to this loan, verbally or in writing, and on what date?
3.	Rid the government or any member thereof promise or take the obligation in writing to guarantee this loan, and under what form and on what date?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Obviously part of this
question can only be answered by disclosing private business between the banks and their customers. With respect to the first part of the question, the answer is very difficult to make because representations were made from the president of the railway company from time to time as to the condition of his railway and the inability to sell its securities. I could not fix the dates with any exactness with respect to that. So far as the next question is concerned, no one connected with the government asked the banks to make a contribution to the loan. The arrangements were made by the raliway company with the banks, and not between the banks and the government. I cannot quite understand the third question, which reads: "Did the government or any member thereof promise or take the obligation in writing to guarantee this loan, and under what form and on what date?" I cannot answer that beyond what is indicated in the document that has been tabled and also set forth at length in the observations I made to the house a few evenings ago.


GRANTS TO PAIRS
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	What grants have been paid during 1933 by the Department of Agriculture to any fairs, agricultural societies, live stock, or farmers' organizations, in Canada?
2.	What are the names of organizations, amounts of grants and when paid, giving in each case the province in which such organization is located?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Question dropped.


ROYAX WINTER FAIR, TORONTO
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	How much money was paid to the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, at Toronto, during the year 1932?
2.	On what dates were payments made?


Charles A. Stewart: Question
dropped.


CABINET MINISTERS-MILITARY PENSIONS
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	Does any member of the government of Canada receive, or has any member of this government received a pension for war service?

2.	If so, who is such member and what is the amount of the pension he has received?
3.	Is he still in receipt of a pension?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Hon. D. M. Sutherland: March 14, 1919, to April 30, 1921, $19.50 per month; May 1, 1921, to March 31, 1927, $26 per month; from April 1, 1927, $32.50 per month, which continues in effect.
Hon. R. J. Manion: February 10, 1918, to February 28, 1919, $16.67 per month; March 1, 1919, to June 30, 1919, $8.34 per month, when pension was discontinued at his request.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


GOLD AND SILVER PURCHASES
Mr. REID:: 1.	What amounts of gold were purchased by the Dominion government during the past twelve months?
2.	What price did the government pay for any gold purchased?
3.	What amounts of silver were purchased by the Dominion government during the past twelve months?
4.	What price did the government pay for any silver purchased?
5.	Did the Dominion government sell any silver during the past twelve months?
6.	If so: (a) what amounts were sold; and (b) what amounts were used by the mint for coinage in Canada?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	2,612,049 ounces fine.
2.	$71,913,624, which represented the proceeds received upon actual sale of the gold in world markets, less all costs incidental to the refining and marketing of such gold.
3.	341,711 ounces fine.
4.	$114,389.
5.	Yes.
6.	(a) 32,272 ounces fine in mint sweep exported, and 1,750 ounces fine to manufacturers; (b) none of the silver referred to in 3 was used for coinage. The silver used for coinage during the year was obtained from worn and mutilated coin.


DEPENDENTS' PENSIONS-ANNUAL SAVING
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What is the estimated annual saving arising out of the reduction or cancellation of dependents' pensions occasioned by the review undertaken during the years 1932 and 1933 by the Board of Pension Commissioners?


Mr. MacLAREN:: $124,528, made up as follows:
22 Cancellations of widows' pensions
for misconduct	$ 14,976
38 Cancellations of pensions awarded
in error	 25,572

Questions
499 Reductions and cancellations- changes in financial status of
parents	 82,936
5 Reductions of orphans' to ordinary rates	 1,044
514	1124,528
Note.-There was no special review in 1932. There are no statistics available to show the number of the above reductions or cancellations which were due to the special review in 1933, as distinct from those due to routine review.


DISABILITY PENSIONS-ANNUAL SAVING
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the estimated annual saving arising out of the reduction or cancellation of disability pensions occasioned by the review undertaken during the years 1932 and 1933 by the Board of Pension Commissioners?


Murray MacLaren: '
$536,630, made up as follows:
1,376 Reductions - previously pensioned as incurred during service, now pensioned as aggravated during service	$364,448
71 Cancellations-previously pensioned as incurred during service or aggravated during service	 19,896
6 Cancellations-previously	pensioned as incurred during service, now aggravated, but
aggravation negligible	 966
123 Cancellations-pension awarded
in error	 44,699
672 Discontinued with gratuity.. 106,621
2,248	$ 536,630
Note.-There was no special review in 1932. There are no statistics available to show the number of the above reductions or cancellations which were due to the special review in 1933, as distinct from those due to routine review.


ANTHRACITE COAL PRODUCTION
Mr. NEILL:: What was the tonnage of anthracite coal produced in Canada in each of the years from 1930 to 1933, inclusive?


Mr. STEVENS:: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics have not recently recorded any production of anthracite in Canada. It is understood that there is a small deposit in the Cascade district
of Alberta which is being operated by one company at the present time, and which is anthracite in character. The output is only a few hundred tons annually, and has not been separated either in the reports of the Bureau of Statistics or of the Alberta government from the bituminous output.


JORDAN MEMORIAL SANATORIUM
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Does Department of Pensions and National Health, pay any maintenance charges for returned soldiers or military patients at Jordan Memorial Sanatorium, The Glades, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what is total paid up to January 1, 1934?
3.	How many persons are there at present at Jordan Memorial Sanatorium, The Glades, New Brunswick, and who are receiving pensions from federal government?
4.	What are their names, and what is each
one receiving yearly:	(a) as of January 1,
1933; (b) as of January 1, 1934?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$148,993.25.
3.	There are none whose hospital maintenance is paid by the department.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


TUBERCULOSIS FREE AREAS
Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: 1.	What areas in Manitoba are designated as tuberculosis-free areas?
2.	Since 1925, what areas in Manitoba have made application to be included as tuberculosis-free areas?
3.	What were the dates of these applications ?
4.	What areas, if any, were approved by the Department of Agriculture as tuberculosis-free areas?
5.	What were the dates of approval?
6.	In what areas, if any, were tuberculosis tests actually made?
7.	What were the dates1 of said tests, if any?


Mr. WEIR (MeMort):: 1.	The rural municipalities of Portage la Prairie, Grey, Dufierin, Roland, Thompson. Rhineland, Pembina, Stanley, Winchester, Morris and Louise.
2.	The rural municipalities of Old Kildonan, West Kildonan, Cartier, South Norfolk, Stanley, Rhineland, Portage la Prairie, Pembina, Morris west of the Red River, Winchester, Louise, Morton, Lome and Brenda.
3.	May 28, 1926; August 15, 1927; February 25, 1929; September 25, 1929; March 25, 1930; May 13, 1930; August 30, 1930; December 11, 1930; February 4, 1931; July 8, 1931; September 12, 1931; January 30, 1933.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
Questions

5.	April 30, 1930; May 23, 1930; April 2, 1931; September 6, 1930; March 6, 1930.
6.	The rural municipalities of Stanley, Rhineland, Portage la Prairie, Pembina, Winchester, Dufferin, Roland, Thompson, and Grey.
7.	Various dates in each of the years: 1923, 1924, 1925, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933.


E. J. S. VERGE
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has Mr. E. J. S. Verge been removed from his position of returning officer for the county of Bonaventure?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	Has a new returning officer been appointed in his stead?
4.	If so, who is he and on whose recommendation was the appointment made?
5.	Who laid the complaint, if any, against Mr. Verge?
6.	Has the new appointee any experience as returning officer?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Because, after an enquiry under oath pursuant to section 18 of the Dominion Elections Act, the Chief Electoral Officer concluded that the returning officer had failed competently to discharge the duties of his office in that, after certain deputy returning officers had refused ballots to persons who were not qualified to vote, the returning officer, without an investigation of the qualifications of the persons concerned, intervened and used his authority to cause ballots to be furnished to them, whereupon they voted, contrary to the statute.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Mr. J. P. LeBoutillier, of Paspebiac, Que.; (b) the selection and appointment being made by the Chief Electoral Officer.
5.	Mr. C. N. Dorion, MfP.
6.	No.


BUREAU OP STATISTICS BULLETIN
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	How many copies of the daily bulletin of the federal Bureau of Statistics are distributed each day, whether by mail or otherwise?
2.	What is the estimated expense occasioned by the publication and distribution of this bulletin?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	383 (294 English, 89 French), of which 188 to the press; 139 to legations, individuals and officials; 58 to universities and large business concerns.
2.	Average cost per issue (paper, ink, other supplies and clerical labour), $6.30.


MCKENNA-MCBRIDE AGREEMENT
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	In what year was the McKenna-McBride agreement relating to Indian reserves in British Columbia entered into?
2.	Did it provide for readjustment of reserves in British Columbia and for that province to convey the agreed on reserves to the Dominion government ?
3.	Has this conveyance taken place, and if not, what is the cause of the delay?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	1912.
2.	Yes.
3.	No; the final schedule of reserves to be conveyed by the province was checked by the Department of Indian Affairs and returned to Victoria, February 22, 1933.


TRADE COMMISSIONER-DUBLIN, IRELAND
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	Is Canada represented by a trade commissioner to the Irish Free State?
2.	What has been the extent of Canadian trade with the Irish Free State during the years 1931, 1932 and 1933?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1. Yes, at Dublin.
2.
Canada's Trade with Irish Free State (Calendar Years, 1931, 1932 and 1933)
1931	1932	1933Imports from	
S 42,438	$ 39,721	$ 26,824Exports to- Domestic produce	
2,639,565'	2,578,931	3,422,074Foreign produce	
738	654	5,903Total exports	
$2,640,303	$2,579,585	$3,427,977Total trade	
$2,682,741	$2,619,306	$3,454,801

Questions


SECRETARY OF STATE DEPARTMENT-TRANSLATOR
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	Is the "one translator in the Department of the Secretary of State who translates foreign languages into English and French for all departments of the public service," as per the statement embodied in the explanatory notes of the Secretary of State's Bill No. 4, a competent translator to translate English or any foreign document into French?
2.	Has the "one translator" passed any examination to establish his competency in translating into French language? If so, what certificate has he received, and from what authority?
3.	Is the work of that "one translator of the Department of the Secretary of State" performed up to date? If not, how many months is the translation of foreign documents entrusted with that "one translator" delayed, for want of help ?
4.	Why has the Department of the Secretary of State not engaged a sufficient number of translators to attend efficiently to the various documents, for the translation of which explanatory notes of Bill No. 4 declare "the Secretary of . State has frequently to procure assistance from outside the public service?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	The translator of the Department of the
Secretary of State was engaged to translate into English correspondence and other documents in western European languages, namely; German, Dutch, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish and Icelandic, for all departments of government, and he translates a limited number of documents into French as required. In the past year from January 1, 1933, to January 1, 1934, this transi-lator for twenty-two offices of government has translated 1,516 foolscap sheets of tetters, certificates and technical documents, as follows :	82 from Danish language, 85 from
Dutch, 7 from Flemish, 10 from French, 574 from German, 7 from Icelandic, 478 from Italian, 1 from Latin, 64 from Norwegian, 8 from Portuguese, 133 from Spanish, 67 from Swedish. In addition this one translator has acted with the Civil Service Commission in valuing 327 examination papers in French, German, Italian and Spanish.
2.	The translator was employed temporarily in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Post Office and Interior until 1921, when he was made permanent by the Civil Service Commission. I do not know what examinations he passed, but I do know that he is very competent to translate into English or French the languages mentioned in my first answer.
3.	The correspondence is practically up to date, but certain technical book work to be translated into English is not yet completed.
No complaints have been received as to any alleged delay throughout the year.
4.	No appropriation is made by parliament for the payment of any additional translators; and no additional translators are needed in the public service if the work of translation is properly distributed among and duly performed by the translators now employed in the public service.


SECRETARY, RAILWAY COMMISSION
Eccles James Gott: Who is the secretary of the Board of Railway Commissioners, what salary does he receive, and what is his age?


Robert James Manion: A. D. Cartwright; salary 86,000 a year, less .ten per cent; age sixty-nine.


PREMIUM PAYMENTS ON GOLD
Mr. MITCHELL:: What was the amount of premiums pn gold paid by the Dominion of Canada during the last fiscal year?


Mr. RHODES:: During the fiscal year
1932-33 the amounts paid for gold, being the value received on sale abroad less all costs incidental to the refining and marketing of such gold, were $8,426,051.53 in excess of the standard value.


RURAL MAIL ROUTES AND BOXES
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	How many rural mail boxes were purchased since the present government assumed power ?
2.	How many rural mail delivery routes were established in the fiscal year ending March .31, 1933?
3.	How many rural mail delivery boxes were on hand at the end of September, 1930?


Mr. DUPRE (for Mr. Sauve):: 1. 10,000.
2.	33.
3.	25,555.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD
Mr. McPHEE:: 1.	What amount of interest has been collected each year since its inception by the Soldiers' Settlement Board ?
2.	What amount of principal lias been collected each year by the Soldiers' Settlement Board ?
3.	What is the cost of the Soldiers' Settlement Board and its entire staff, per annum?
4.	How many settlers have been established on farms by the Soldiers' Settlement Board?
5.	How many settlers have vacated their farms: (a) voluntarily; (b) by foreclosure?
6.	What is the amount of the fund under the control of the Soldiers' Settlement Board?

466	COMMONS		
Questions


Mr. GORDON:: 1 and	2.		
Fiscal Year	Interest	Principal	Total1918-19	$ 139 35	$ 4,323 26	$ 4.462 611919-20	12,424 66	2,339,592 32	2,352,016 981920-21	677.938 12	5,140,054 16	5,817,992 281921-22	786,322 41	2,938,943 63	3,725,266 041922-23	1,310,889 94	2,032,539 43	3,343.429 371923-24	1,226,398 08	2.405,710 91	3,632,108 991924-25	1,206,668 19	2,614.464 14	3,821,132 331925-26	1,491,892 79	2,812,016 09	4,303,908 881926-27	1,889,763 12	2,547.082 92	4.436,846 041927-28	2,078,877 15	2,807,359 91	4.886,237 061928-29	1,982,911 63	2,851,768 09	4,834,679 721929-30	1,774.549 99	2,796,191 10	4.570,741 091930-31	720,844 56	1,659,001 14i	2,379.845 701931-32	709,342 78	1,056,320 91	1,765,663 691932-33	600,418 29'	738,307 55	1,338,725 8410 Months Fiscal Year	to January 31/34	354,048 75	811,402 42	1,165,451 17$16,823,429 81	$35,855,077 98	$52,378,507 793. Administration Cost	1932-33:-	QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR	Soldier Land Settlement $587,325 27	RETURNS	Colonization	213,000 00	ANIMALS BRANCH	-WESTERN INSPECTORSinvestigations for other	Departments	18,000 00	Mr. McICENZIE	(Assiniboia):

4.	35,492.
5.	(a) and (b)-
13,504.
(Records do not show number voluntarily vacated as compared to number vacated by foreclosure.)
6.	No fund.
1.	What are the names, ages and duties of all inspectors employed in western Canada, since 1930, by the Health of Animals branch, Department of Agriculture, showing the period each was employed?
2.	How many of these are temporary employees, and how long have such temporary employees been employed?


Robert Weir: Return tabled herewith.


CANADIAN AIRWAYS LIMITED
Mr. BOULANGER:: 



SCOTSBURN, PICTOU, R.R. NO. 1, MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Has the contract for the rural mail delivery for Scotsburn No. 1 rural mail route, county of Pictou, been awarded?
2.	If so, what were the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender?


Mr. DUPRE (for Mr. Sauve):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Robert Ross Sutherland, $749; Andrew
J.	Campbell, $749; David Harbourne, $770; John E. Fraser, $790; Hugh R. Ross, $840; Jas. A. MacKenzie, $850; Peter W. Sutherland, $875; Geo. W. Sutherland, $900; James Cameron, $900; A. C. Sutherland, $900; R. A. McKay, $949; Martin P. Berry, $955; Martin P. Berry, $1,044.
'Mr. McPhee.]
1.	Has the government or one of its departments a contract or contracts -with the Canadian Airways Limited or one of its branches?
2.	If so, what is the nature, the duration and the consideration of such contract or contracts ?


Mr. CAHAN:: Return tabled herewith.



PORT DANIEL EAST, QTJE., WHARF

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	How much money has been expended by the Department of Public Works since August 1, 1930, on the departmental -wharf at Port Daniel East, Bonaventure county, Quebec?
2.	Were tenders called for this work; if not, why?
3.	Who was the overseer of this work, and had he any experience in such work previous to this appointment?
4.	How much was expended: (a) in material; (b) in labour?

Motions for Papers
5.	Was tlie material secured in the parish or county; if not, why?
6.	Was the material purchased by contract;
if not, why?	_	_
7.	If by contract, who supplied the material and at what price?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Return tabled herewith,



TRUST AND LOAN COMPANIES

Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	What dividends have been declared by
the trust and loan companies making returns to the government during the years 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933?	.
2.	What are the names of such companies and what per cent upon its capital did each company declare as a dividend during each of the above years?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Return tabled herewith.



PAYMENTS TO J. C. MCRUER, K.C.

Mr. SHAVER:: 1.	What was the total amount paid by the government of Canada to Mr. J. C. McRuer,
K.C., of Toronto, for legal services rendered during the years 1921 to 1930, inclusive: (a) for services; (b) travelling allowances; (c) living allowances?
2.	At what rate per diem was Mr. McRuer paid?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. VENIOT:: For a copy of contract, correspondence and all reports relating to the awarding of a contract, which recently expired, for the delivery of mails on route R.R. No. 2, Salisbury, New Brunswick, and all correspondence relating to the award of a new contract.



NASH'S CREEK, RESTIGOUCHE, N.B., POSTMASTER

Mr. MICHAUD:: For a copy of all correspondence and inspectors' reports, with reference to investigations held into charges made against the postmaster at Nash's Creek, Restigouclie county, New Brunswick.



SHIGAWAKE, QUE., WHARF

Charles Marcil: For a copy of pay lists and accounts for material for work done by the Department of Public Works on the department wharf at Shigawake, Quebec, since August, 1930.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-GASPE MAILS

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Post Office Department and any of its officials, and the Canadian National Railways and any of its officials, regarding the handling and delivery of Gaspe peninsula mails at Matapedia, Quebec, and Campbellton, New Brunswick; also a statement showing the additional cost incurred in the handling of such mails since the Gaspe trains have been run to and' from Campbellton, New Brunswick.
74726-30.}



LITTLE SANDS, KING'S, P.E.I., BREAKWATER

Peter John Veniot: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, tenders, engineers' reports, estimates in full, together with a detailed statement of pay lists of each person employed; also of all material purchased, giving the names of parties from whom the material was purchased; also the amount paid to each person for truckage, etc.; also the amount paid to the foreman and inspector, in connection with the .repairs to the breakwater at Little Sands, King's county, Prince Edward Island.



EUGENE ANGLEHART, KELLY, BONAVENTURE, QUE., POSTMASTER

Charles Marcil: For a copy of the evidence and the report of the commissioner, in connection with the enquiry into the charges of partisanship against Eugene Anglehart, postmaster of Kelly, Bona-venture county.



SCENTED GRASS HILL, GREAT BEAR LAKE, COAL AREA APPLICATION

Mr. HEENAN:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents concerning an application by Mr. Nere Robert, for coal area in the vicinity of Scented Grass hill, Great Bear lake, Northwest Territories.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES MINING REGULATIONS

Peter Heenan: For a copy of all regulations regarding work on mineral areas from 1930 to date, in the Northwest Territories.



OXDRIFT, ONT., POSTMASTERSHIP

Peter Heenan: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents and reports made, concerning the dismissal or resignation of the postmaster at Oxdrift, Ontario, during the months of November and December, 1933, and January, 1934.


Peter Heenan: 
Mr. RAYMOND:: For a copy of all correspondence interchanged between the government of Canada, or one or any of its members, and one or any of the Canadian banks, in connection with the guarantee given by the government for the loan of $60,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Donat Raymond: For a copy of all correspondence interchanged between the government of Canada, or any of its members, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or any of its officers, in connection with the guarantee given by the government for the loan of $60,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Motions for Papers



R-E. NO. 1, SALISBURY, N.B. MAIL CONTRACT

[Stage Direction]
On the motion:
Peter John Veniot: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and calls for tenders, in connection with the mail contract for delivery of mails on route R.R. No. 1, Salisbury, New Brunswick.


Peter John Veniot: Motion dropped.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ACCIDENT AT ST. CHARLES DE CAPLAN

Charles Marcil: For a copy of the report of the investigation held by the Canadian National Railways into the accident^ at St. Charles de Caplan, on the Gaspe line, in which the snow plough attached to the passenger train toppled off the trestle, causing the death of John Allard, engineer.
Mr. MANIO'N: I have no objection to this motion passing, but we have no such copy in our department and the motion is passed on the understanding that we shall endeavour to get the report from the railways.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES MINING REGULATIONS

Peter Heenan: For a copy of all moratorium in connection with mining activities in the Northwest territories.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would ask what this means. Probably it is covered by the succeeding motion for a copy of all regulations.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I cannot interpret the meaning of the motion. Does the hon. member want it dropped?


Peter Heenan: No. As I understand the matter, there is a moratorium on mining activities in the Northwest Territories exempting the miners from performing work with respect to assessment. That is quite different from the regulations.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. One cannot ask the house to pass an order covering "all moratorium." I would say that the subsequent motion for a copy of all regulations regarding the work on all mineral areas would cover the regulations such as the hon. member has in mind. Possibly the motion had better stand in order that the hon. member may have an opportunity to amend it if he thinks that is desirable. The house cannot be asked to pass something which is not intelligible.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion will be
dropped by the hon. member for the purpose of revision. The wording is not intelligible.
Motion dropped.



SHIPPIGAN, N.B.-WHARF

Peter John Veniot: For a copy of all correspondence, calls for tenders and other documents, including a list of the names of the persons submitting tenders, in connection with the addition to the wharf at Shippigan, New Brunswick. Also a statement showing as to whether or not a contract was awarded, and if awarded, the reason for its being cancelled.



CORRESPONDENCE RE WHEAT AND FLOUR SALES IN THE ORIENT

Mr. MOTHERWELL:: For a copy of all correspondence, cables and other documents, exchanged between the Honourable Herbert Marler, Canadian representative in Tokyo, Japan, or the representative of any other country, and any member of the * federal government, with respect to the possibility and practicability of disposing of more Canadian farm products, especially wheat and wheat flour, either in Japan or China, during the past three and a half years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This raises a question
to which I directed the attention of this house, and particularly the right hon. leader of the opposition, something over a year ago. There are two forms of communication carried on between the government of Canada and its representatives abroad. Cables are passing frequently, and it has never been the custom to bring them down in this house. On the other hand reports on trade matters are always available to parliament. In passing this order it must be understood that only those documents that are of a public character can be produced; as distinguished from communications passing between the government and its representatives abroad.


William Richard Motherwell: Quite satisfactory.



LIFE INSURANCE


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin) moved:: That in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the advisability of nationalizing life insurance.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in moving this
resolution I would like at the outset to make it clear to the house that my object is not particularly to criticize our Canadian life insurance companies nor the foreign companies doing business in Canada. That is to. say I have no reason to suspect that these companies are not carrying on their business as efficiently and also as safely as such companies are anywhere in the world. So I

Lije Insurance-Mr. Irvine
hope the discussion that may ensue will centre upon the question whether or not the business of life insurance in Canada could be done more efficiently and more cheaply for the people through the agency of the government than by private companies. In answering that question we have to ask what life insurance is for. What is the main consideration? Is it to keep the life insurance companies going? Is life insurance carried on in Canada for the purpose of collecting enormous funds in the hands of individual companies for investment? Or is not the object rather to provide protection for the people of Canada who need insurance? In this connection Judge Louis D. Brandeis, in commenting on an investigation carried on into the operations of life insurance companies in the United States, said:
The business is carried on for the benefit of others than the policyholders. The needs and financial inexperience of the wage^earner are exploited for the benefit of wage-holders or officials. The results establish conclusively that, in the conduct of the business, the interest of the insured are ignored.
That was the comment of a judge summarizing the evidence that had been put before a special investigating committee with regard to life insurance companies in the United States, and I am reasonably sure that, if there were to be a similar investigation in Canada such a comment would prove applicable to our own companies.
Life insurance is essentially social in character. In fact it is its social character that makes it possible. Further, because of its social character it is, unless it is tampered with, the safest business in the world. In the last analysis it really means that all the individuals embraced in one insurance company undertake together to protect one another to a given amount against the risks of mortality. There are always more policy-holders remaining than the number who die, and unless the funds of the contributors are misspent or badly invested there is no doubt about the safety of the business.
We have to ask then, with regard to our insurance companies in Canada, whether or not they are carrying out the chief function of life insurance, which is to insure the people. Or is the emphasis being placed principally on the success of the companies from a business point of view? Are there people in Canada to-day who are not insured who ought to be insured, and are they not insured because the price of insurance is too high? Then is it or is it not sc that the cost of insurance to the people of Canada who are insured is so high as to be a great burden upon many, so that under pressure of a depression such as we are
passing through large numbers are compelled to yield up their insurance, either by taking its cash surrender value or by letting it lapse and losing it entirely? Do these things not indicate, if they are as suggested, that the price of life insurance is too high to those who are insured, and prohibitive to those who are not?
Many people in Canada are not insured today, and I think it can be shown that those who are insured are paying much more for their insurance than should be necessary or would be necessary under a government scheme. Life insurance as carried on by the private companies is fairly successful, for those who can afford it, but there are many people who cannot afford it, and those are the people who need it most. The classes of people who need life insurance most in Canada obviously are poor people with large families, and those who may be regarded as poor risks, who either are not accepted at all by the companies or else the price is so high as to be prohibitive.
Let us look for a moment at the number of policies in force in Canada at the end of 1932. I find the number to be:
Industrial policies	 4,097,592
Ordinary policies	 2,487,691
Total	 6,585,283
In 1931 the total number of parsons in Canada fifteen years of age and over Was 7,095,571. It is common knowledge, I think, that in ordinary life insurance one individual may have a number of policies, two or three or in fact many in some instances. So while under the ordinary insurance classification we have 2,487,691 policies it is altogether likely that this does not mean that more than a million or so people are insured, because each indivdual thus insured probably will average about two policies. Moreover it must be remembered that in connection with industrial insurance a great number of childnen -are insured, and these are included in that four million. So if we take into consideration the number of children insured under industrial policies and the duplication of policies which we find under the other classifications of insurance, it is very doubtful if the number of people insured in Canada is greater than about half the number of people who require insurance. In other words I would say that about half the people of Canada who need insurance have no insurance at all. I do not think hon. members of this house will seriously dispute my contention when I say that the high cost of insurance, under our private insurance companies, makes it difficult for most of our people to get any insurance at all, and in fact if is impossible in many oases
Life Insurance-Mr. Irvine

The total number of companies doing business in Canada is some 62. In 1932 there were 43 active companies, 28 Canadian, 6 British and 9 foreign. In addition to those active companies there were six British companies and five foreign companies registered to transact life insurance but which have practically ceased to write new insurance, their business being confined to the policies already on their books, eight companies, four British and four foreign, were authorized under the act to transact business in connection with policies written prior to March 31, 1878. So there are forty-three active companies in Canada and sixty-two companies doing business to some extent.
I found some difficulty in getting information as to the Salaries paid the chief officials of the Canadian companies. The note from the department of insurance states that the managers do not constitute a well-defined class, that the officials and employees designated as managers in some companies are known by other designations in other companies. In the annual report of the department the total of head office and branch office salaries were given, from which the following figures have been compiled. For the year 1932 head office salaries of Canadian companies amounted to $10,089,615; for British companies doing business in Canada to $240,271, and for foreign companies doing business in Canada to $1,144,935, thus making a total head office salary account for all the companies doing business in Canada of $11,474,821. Then for branch office salaries, those of Canadian companies amounted in 1932 to $9,677,859; for British companies, $220,311 and for foreign companies $3,165,306. So we have the total head office and branch office salaries amounting to $24,538,297.
In passing we might note the enormous amount of money tied up in head office buildings. In 1932 the amount tied up in head offices in connection with Canadian companies was $39,359,124 and in connection with British and foreign companies $3,473,345, making a total of $42,832,469. Is it reasonable to bury $42,832,469 in head office buildings while hundreds of thousand of our people have no insurance?
The salaries of insurance executives are perhaps among the highest in the country, both in Canada and in the United States. The president of the United States and the ten members of his cabinet receive a total of $225,000 a year. The eleven highest paid officials in the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received, in the depression year

1931, more than three times as much as was paid the president and cabinet of the United States; in other words, they received $684,000. This company has on its payroll 39 officers receiving salaries greater than the members of the cabinet receive. Three other companies paid their eleven highest paid officials more than twice as much as the president and his cabinet received. The New York Life Insurance Company paid their officials $604,800 and the Prudential Insurance Company $544,000.
In this connection I might just mention the salaries which are paid some of the officials of United States companies, many of which do business in this country. I am sorry I have not the actual figures in this connection for Canadian companies. First there is the Equitable Life Assurance Society; in 1929 the salary of Mr. T. I. Parkinson, president, was $75,000 per year, but that was increased so that in 1932 he received $100,000 per year. I think in the same company there are about four vice presidents who receive about $40,000 annuallly. Mr. F. H. Ecker, president of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, received $175,000 a year in 1929, which was later increased so that in 1932, during the depression, he received $200,000 annually. There are two or three vice-presidents in that company, one of whom receives $125,000 annually, another $40,000 and another $35,000. In the Mutual Life Insurance Company the president, D. F. Houston, received $100,000 per year in 1929, and later that was increased so that in 1932 he received $125,000. Mr. T. A. Buckner, president of the New York Life Insurance Company, received $100,000 in 1929 and $125,400 in 1932. Mr. E. J. Duffield, president of the Prudential Insurance 'Company of America, received $125,000 in 1929 and the same in 1932; his salary did not increase with the depression. I think these figures indicate that there is no need for us to be disturbed about the wellbeing of those who are in charge of some of our insurance companies.
A few years ago the state of New York made certain investigations as to the cost of acquisition of new insurance by the different companies. Again I have been unable to get the figures accurately for Canada, but in a moment I shall give them as I have them here.


Mr. EULER:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? He is giving the salaries of joint stock insurance companies. Has he any information as to the relative salaries paid by mutual insurance companies?

Life Insurance-Mr. Irvine


William Irvine: I think some of the companies I quoted are mutual companies. The Metropolitan is a mutual company.


William Daum Euler: Entirely so?


William Irvine: Entirely so. I am not sure as to whether some of the others are entirely mutual, but I did not take the trouble to differentiate between one and the other with respect to salaries.
A few years ago the New York State Insurance Department made a study of the cost of acquisition of new insurance by the different companies. The investigation covered forty-seven companies authorized to do business in New York state and 215 companies not permitted to do business there. It was found that the acquisition cost in ordinary insurance was forty-eight per cent of the first year's premium for the forty-seven New York companies which are limited by law, and seventy-five per cent for the others. For the year 1929 the first year's premiums in the companies doing business in New York
Whole amount insured
Pacific Mutual Life	 $628,535,911
totalled $278,600,000 out of which $122,800,000 was absorbed by commissions. For the year 1932 the first year commissions paid in Canada were as follows:
Canadian companies	$10,999,042
British companies	 142,118
Foreign companies	 1,376,492
Total	$12,517,652
Something of the meaning of these figures may be brought to our attention forcefully if at this time I refer to certain data which I have obtained through the Spectator Company of New York. This information is taken from the Life Insurance Policyholders Pocket Index of 1927. The table I have before me indicates the whole amount insured by certain companies, the total income for certain years, the total claims, the excess collected and the mortuary experienced per one thousand dollars. It begins with the Pacific Mutual Life, which commenced business in 1868, and the figures in connection with which are as follows:
Total	Death	Mortuaryincome claims	Excess	experienced1926	paid	collected	per $1,000$28,252,847 $3,475,453 $24,777,394	$5.54
I am not going to go into figures in connection with all these companies because I fear they would probably weary the house too much. The result of the table however is as follows: The average income for each $1,000 insurance in force was $43.35. The average mortuary cost per thousand was $4.91, showing a very considerable spread between the amount required to meet death claims and that collected by the insurance companies. I have not the figures for Canada showing the same comparison, but so far as I can gather there is no reason for us to suppose that there is a very great difference, between Canadian companies and that of companies in the United States, to which I have referred.
I wish to point out that policies which lapse from year to year constitute a serious problem not only to the lowest paid classes in Canada, but it materially adds to the cost of insurance from a national point of view Ordinary insurance policies which lapsed in Canada in the years 1930, 1931 and 1932, were as follows:
Ordinary Insurance Policies Lapsed-1939-31-32
1931
No. of policies 120,043 134,369 127,466
Amount

Those, Mr. Speaker, are the figures for ordinary policies. I turn now to the industrial table of lapses, and find the following:
Industrial Insurance Policies Lapsed- 1930-31-32
No. of
policies Amount
1930	
448,834	$132,651,0521931	
457,547	128,763,5581932	. ..	556,801	150,185,896Total	
1,463,182	$411,500,506
Putting these figures together we have the following table showing the total ordinary and industrial insurance policies lapsed for the years indicated.
Total Ordinary and Industrial Insurance Policies Lapsed-1930-31-32
Ordinary insurance policies lapsed. .. Industrial insurance policies lapsed. ..
Total	
No. of policies	Amount
381,878	$789,008,093
1,463,182	411,500,506
1,845,060	$1,200,508,599


Mr. REID:: Has the hon. member any figures showing the amount of premiums paid on lapsed policies?
Total
381,878

Life Insurance-Mr. Irvine


William Irvine: No, I am sorry I have not that information. Adding surrendered policies to these figures it is estimated that about 2,000,000 policies lapsed involving over two billion dollars worth of insurance.


Charles A. Stewart: Has the hon. member given the figures showing the total lapses or are they confined to any particular year?


William Irvine: These are the total lapses for the two main divisions of insurance, namely ordinary and industrial, for the years 1930, 1931 and 1932. These figures, I believe, tell a really tragic story when we stop to consider the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who, perhaps for years, have been trying to protect their families but during the past few years have had to release their hold and lose all that they had paid.
Let me now compare the only state insurance scheme concering which I have been able to get figures, with the companies with which I have been dealing. The ratio of expenses to gross premiums for the first year policies in the Massachusetts system in 1929 amounted to only 9-17 per cent, whereas the average for all companies doing business in that state was 49-21 per cent. It ran as high as 78 per cent in the case of one company. Private companies doing business in Massachusetts had an expense ratio to all those premiums of 18-32 per cent for ordinary policies and 26-34 per cent for industrial policies. These were the figures based on all business done in 1929. In the case of the Massachusetts savings bank system, this ratio was only 4-63 per cent. According to the annual report for 1929 of the Massachusetts commissioner of insurance, by eliminating selling costs, advertising and high salaries, the Massachusetts savings bank life insurance system was able to sell insurance 26 per cent below private companies and more than 50 per cent below the commercial rates on the weekly premium plan. Detailed figures show that in some cases two years' protection in a private insurance company cost the insured five times as much as it would have done under the state scheme. Another instance is that of a holder of a twenty-year endowment policy, aged 30 at entry. In the case of a S250 policy, the net result at the end of two years showed a cost of $2.50 under the savings bank life insurance scheme as compared with a cost of $31.20 in the case of a private company. In this instance the policy holder paid more than twelve times as much for $250 protection in an industrial insurance company as he would have had to pay for insurance under state control.

I see that my time in running short and I must turn from these figures to urge an argument based thereon. I urge that the whole life insurance business of this country should be taken over by the government. It is obvious that in a forty minute speech one cannot give a detailed plan for the taking over of insurance companies, but I do not know of anything that could be taken over more easily. The entire paid-up capital of all insurance companies in Canada amounts to only $10,000,000, and this is S10,000,000 that they have no business to have. Insurance companies do not need capital of that sort; $10,000,000 of unneeded capital is only an added charge upon the policyholders. It serves no other function. If the government took over the business now done by private companies it would be in an even better position to meet the requirements of the policyholders than private companies are. If the will was present, I do not anticipate any difficulty in the government finding a proper, efficient and effective way of putting this scheme into effect.
Perhaps one of the greatest advantages in favour of a state scheme is the wider distribution of risk which is made possible. The wider spread that can be given to the risk, the lesser risk there is and the cost of insurance accordingly becomes less. We have but to take the idea which is exemplified so well in group insurance and apply it to a still larger group, say to seven million Canadian citizens. As the group is enlarged, the cost is decreased. Under the group insurance plan an insurance company can go into a factory and sign up a group of fifty men without medical examination. They know from their actuarial experience that it is quite safe. They are able to give insurance to the oldest man as cheaply as the youngest. If that can be done with a group of fifty, it can be done much more easily with a group of seven million. By making this a national business and spreading the risk out to seven million people we can reduce the cost of insurance to a fraction of what it is now costing under the competitive system, figures in regard to which I have just given.
The next point in favour of nationalization is the compulsory feature. I suggest that our national insurance should be compulsory, it should apply to every person in the state who reaches a certain age. This age can be fixed at fifteen, eighteen, or twenty, that is a matter of detail. The maximum and minimum of the policies is another detail which could be arranged. The compulsory feature would reduce greatly the cost of insurance. At present

Li]e Insurance-Mr. Gershaw
we have forty-three companies in Canada, each with a network of agencies across the dominion; there are forty-three head offices and branch offices of each company in almost every city, town and village. There is an enormous cost in getting business under these conditions. A compulsory system under state control would permit this business being obtained for practically nothing. With a national compulsory scheme permitting the spreading out of risks there would be a material reduction in the cost of insurance and it would be brought within the reach of millions of our people who are now unable to obtain protection in a private company.
Another point to 'be considered is the amount of insurance investments in relation to the national economy. Perhaps I have time to put on record the figures in connection with the investments of Canadian insurance companies which I obtained from the Department of Insurance. These figures are the book value of the assets as at December 31, 1932. The Canadian real estate assets were valued at $55,034,238; the nomCanadian at $3,303,321, making a total of $58,337,559. I have not the time to give the details of other assets, so I shall give only the totals. The total Canadian assets of the Canadian companies were valued at $1,015,253,376; the nonCanadian at $528,182,242, making a total of $1,655,104,037. The total investments of these companies amount to well up to two billions of dollars.
I am one of those who believe that the time has come when this country will have to exercise some control over investments. If the Canadian government should make such a decision in the near future it would be necessary for them to obtain control of this tremendous sum which, is now at the mercy, if I may say so, of these private companies. It is not too much to say that these private companies collect money from the people of Canada and then invest that money to the detriment of those who subscribe. Sometimes the investment may be safe enough but I am sure that very often it is made in enterprises which do not need further capital. Over capitalization causes a rise in prices of the commodity produced to the very people who have furnished the money for the investment. Let me give an example. When binders were made by hand they could be bought by the farmers of Canada at about $100, but when the machine production made it possible to stamp out hundreds almost like biscuits, they cost about $300 apiece. The rise
in price was due very largely to overcapitalization, and insurance companies have done their share of over-capitalization among industries both in this and in other countries.
I contend that a government cannot afford to allow an investment of two billion dollars to be made by these sixty-two private companies if there is to be any control of investment with a view to national policy. I sincerely hope that the day is not far distant when the government of this country will insist on planning its investments with a view to the national economy, and thus taking hold of insurance from that point of view as well as from the point of view of giving insurance to all of the people of Canada at the lowest possible price. Let me also point out that the nation really is in the insurance business, whether it wants to be or not, for when an individual dies and leaves his dependents unprotected, their care falls upon the community. The community must 'take care of those who are not protected by insurance whether i-t is in the insurance business or not. I submit that it is bad business for the community to pick up only those who are entirely incapable of protecting themselves and to allow the cream to Ibe skimmed off 'by the private insurance companies who take as policyholders those who are well able to pay for insurance, and who perhaps scarcely need it at all.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: I wish to make a few remarks on this very important subject, not because I feel at all competent to deal with it exhaustively, but because I believe that insurance is one of the weapons that can be used -in fighting poverty. We have poverty in this country from coast to coast. We have poverty that is an unsatisfied need for goods, side by side [DOT] with unemployment, which is an unused ability to produce goods. Every observer will admit that these are the two great tragedies of the present time. If we can get a system of social credits which will solve these problems, by all1 means we should do so, but if we cannot we should at least come to grips with these problems and not pass up any opportunity of making things a little better. The social consciousness of the people of this country has been deeply stirred by the distress which has been brought about.
Insurance should do three things: (1) It should encourage the non-thrifty to save; (2) it should make secure for the industrious the product of their thrift; (3) above all, it should give that sense of security, in
.	COMMONS
Life Insurance-Mr. Gershaw
fact, that actual security which would bring satisfaction and freedom from worry to those who otherwise would view the future with fear and dread.
With most of the insurance schemes the agriculturist has nothing to do. He is excluded from the Workmen's Compensation Act. He would likely be excluded from an unemployment insurance act. But if insurance could be brought within reach of the agriculturist a great service would be done and he then would have the opportunity of sharing in its benefits.
We realize that the insurance companies have stood up reasonably well under the stress and strain of the last four years of depression. We realize that the insurance companies persuade most of the people to take out insurance. It may be true that they are taking a cut for themselves of 20 to 25 per cent, but if they are looking after our interests we perhaps would not begrudge them that percentage.
I wish to go into some detail and try to make clear just how safe our insurance is at the present time. Insurance has become a tremendous-a powerful-institution in Canada. It has been said there are some forty-three companies actively engaged in business, twenty-eight Canadian, six British and nine foreign. The life insurance in force in this country is around six and a half billion dollars, and the total assets of the insurance companies are $1,632,528,293. Out of ten million people in Canada there are in force ordinary policies to the number of 2,487,691 and industrial policies to the number of 4,097,592. The ordinary policy averages $2,143, and the average industrial policy, $201. Of course, Canadian companies do business in many other countries in the world besides [DOT] Canada.
The report of the Superintendent of Insurance gives these interesting figures. It states that out of each $100 of income received by an insurance company, $61.32 goes in disbursements in assurance and annuity contracts; $14.50 in general expenses; $1.51 in taxes; 33 cents in dividends to shareholders; $7.06 in other expenses, and $15.28 carried to reserve.
We must also realize that insurance is largely based on three things-the mortality tables, investments, and premium income. The mortality tables are compiled with great care. They give exact information that can be obtained by the insurance companies who can thereby tell just what calls are likely to be made upon them within any given period of 
time. The companies have perhaps been getting the breaks in this regard lately because people are living longer than they formerly did, and it must be said that the insurance companies are doing their part to help prolong life. They are paying for periodical medical examinations and are broadcasting health knowledge in very many ways, as well as supporting hospitals and similar institutions.
When we turn to their investments, we find that the funds of Canadian companies are widely diversified. They have invested in dominion, provincial, municipal, foreign and industrial bonds, also in preferred and common stocks. They have gone in for such things as power, apartment blocks, railways, real estate, farm mortgages and so forth. Anyone looking over a list of these investments will realize that the securities of life insurance companies have in some cases depreciated very largely in recent years. Of course they have only a certain percentage of their funds in any one type of investment, but summing up the investment program we must conclude that the companies are reasonably well managed and can carry on so long as the normal growth of the nation continues. And it is on that assumption that the security of the policyholder rests.
Insurance companies have a continuous stream of money coming in as premium income. This is a very substantial amount. In 1932 for the ordinary life industrial policies in Canada there was received in premiums $137,029,051, with perhaps another $4,000,000 for group insurance. This has increased rapidly in recent years. In 1931 it amounted to $144,000,000. But in 1922 it was just $67,000,000; in 1912, $23,000,000; in- 1902, $10,000,000; in 1892, $4,750,000 in 1882, only $1,500,000.
This income has increased and it can continue to increase just so long as the volume of business increases, the population increases, the popularity of the insurance keeps up and the ability of policyholders to pay continues. From these sources insurance companies receive their returns and upon this security they are able to make their payments to policyholders. Therefore we must recognize these factors in estimating the strength of insurance companies.
During times past insurance was written on many different plans such as term insurance, endowment insurance, twenty pay life and so on, but recently I understand that the popular policies are life income, or refund annuity, and that our chartered companies are selling a great deal of insurance on this basis. It must be remembered that in years long gone

Lije Insurance-Mr. Rhodes
by the Dominion government established a system of government annuities and in so doing they provided for Canadian funds a place for investment which stands high to-day. My reason for rising now is to try to put forward the idea that by the use of this scheme as a framework, a policy could be worked out which would go a long way toward providing unemployment benefits and perhaps looking after the requirements of old age pensions. I know it is stated that rates for these annuities are too low; that they are based upon out-of-date mortality figures and that the government is paying all expenses of administration; but the fact remains that this stands out as one of the premium investments at the present time.
Let us take a few examples. Persons taking out annuities can start paying at any age; they can pay monthly or quarterly or yearly or, if they so desire, they can purchase their policy with a single payment, a single premium. If a man aged twenty wishes to have an income of $100 per annum after he
has reached a certain age, the yearly premiums	
are as follows: Years of age-	Yearly premium 	 $ 4 64
		 7 08
		 10 61
		 15 71
After 50			 23 14
Supposing he does not	wish to involve himself with these payments over a long term of years and desires to settle the matter at once; if he starts at twenty years of age with the idea of having an annuity of $100 after he has reached seventy years, he will pay a single premium of $102.55. That is a surprisingly small sum of money which would accumulate sufficiently in fifty years to pay him $100 a year as long as he lives.


Mr. SPENCER:: Does the hon. member
mean $100 a year or $100 a month?


Frederick William Gershaw: It would be $100 a year. At other ages the single premium would be:
Single
Years of age-	premium
After	65	$150	98After	60	
216	22After	55	
301	89After 50	- .. [DOT] [DOT]	412 13
For women similar rates are given in the table. These policies are flexible. If a man wished to have his annuity start at seventy and then later on desired to have it start at sixty or some other age, that could be arranged. Supposing he takes out an annuity and dies before he reaches the age at which
the annuity was to start, then all he has paid in plus four per cent compound interest is paid to his estate. These figures are under plan A. If he wishes to haVe the annuity guaranteed for any term of years, that may be obtained by the payment of a slightly higher premium.
I understand it would perhaps not be advisable for the government to assist an optional, noncompulsory form of protection like this, but some other scheme could be worked out. For instance, the officers of the income tax branch know what income almost every person in Canada is receiving from wages or dividends. They could ask those who are paying income tax to pay a little more and thus get this protection. They could ask those who are not paying income taxes to contribute some of these small amounts that I have mentioned and thus make sure that their old age would be provided for. With this as a basis the government would be justified in contributing certain amounts, probably asking the industries to contribute certain sums and thus work out a scheme which would provide protection in case of unemployment or sickness, and perhaps for old age pensions at a younger age than that at which they start at the present time.
I believe along these lines something could be done to evolve a workable plan that would banish the spectre of poverty and want and along these lines the government could very well nationalize insurance.
Hon. E. iN. RHODES (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I had rather thought a subject of this importance would have received at the hands of the house more attention than is apparently indicated by the limited number of speeches we have had upon the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Irvine). At the outset of his remarks he said that he had no intention of criticizing insurance business, nor had he reason to think the business in Canada was not conducted as effectively and efficiently as in any other part of the world, but he very shortly afterwards followed that by a citation from, I take it, a decision of Judge Brandeis of the United States, whether he was sitting as a judge or a commissioner, I am not at the moment aware. At all events, the citation which he gave and which I was not able to take down owing to the rapidity with which my hon. friend speaks, was a criticism of the manner in which insurance business had been conducted in the republic to the south. Then he proceeds to say he is not sure that the same criticism might not be levelled against

Lije Insurance-Mr. Rhodes
the insurance business in Canada. I submit that the hon. member's reference to the statement of Judge Brandeis was hardly in keeping with the statement he made at the outset of his remarks; and that, even assuming that the criticism of Judge Brandeis was true with respect to insurance in the United States, it by no means follows that it is true with respect to insurance in Canada. I think that, by and large, we have reason to feel proud of the stupendous insurance business which has been built up in Canada, and, on the whole, of the character of that business and the manner in which it has been conducted. I think it compares favourably with any similar business to be found in any country in the world. While I am not suggesting for a moment that it is not capable of improvement-no human institution is perfect-I do say that on the whole it has served the people' of this country extremely well, and I deprecate any suggestion, emanating either from the resolution or from discussion in the house, that we have not full confidence in and reason to be proud of the manner in which insurance has been conducted in Canada.
My hon. friend cited some figures as to salaries paid to insurance executives in the United States. I have never heard criticism levelled against high salaries paid to insurance executives in Canada. I am prepared to admit that my personal feeling is that we have gone too far in many instances in the high salary field-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not believe any man is worth the gigantic salaries paid to executives in some institutions, chiefly in other countries. On the whole we have been happily free from that tendency in Canada, with rare exceptions. But having said so much let me say this:
I have no doubt in the world you could get insurance executives for $1,000 a year. But they would be the most expensive men you could possibly get- It by no means follows that because you paj' an excessive salary to an executive, ipso facto the cost of insurance is going up. Even if salaries are excessive, the successful management of the business is of far more importance to those dependent upon it than the mere amount of the salary, which after all is but a trifling percentage of the amount involved in the business. It would be a mere fraction spread over the millions of policy-holders in a given company. If salaries of executives were eliminated altogether the effect on the dividends paid to 
policy-holders or the premiums collected would represent but a fraction of a cent. So my reference to that is merely to indicate that it has practically no effect upon the main result.


William Irvine: With sixty-two companies it would help some.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend gave a multiplicity of figures. I do not propose to follow him in detail even if it were desirable, but I will cite a few figures which I think have an important bearing upon the manner in which we should approach the consideration of a resolution of this kind. I think perhaps my hon. friend will agree that perhaps one of the main essentials of life insurance is security, both for the business and for the policy-holders. In that connection I may point out ithat during the eighty-five years that life insurance has been in force in Canada under government supervision there has never been a dollar lost to a policy-holder. Furthermore, during .the past fifty years, dm which there has been government sujpervision of foreign companies doing business in this country, and deposits have been required as security for the fulfillment of insurance contracts, there has never been a dollar lost to a policy-holder through effecting insurance in any foreign company. Our records are complete with respect to insurance companies back to the year 1875, a period of fifty-eight years. During that time the total income of Canadian insurance companies was ^ $4,235,746,206. This is composed as follows: *
Insurance premiums and consideration for annuities. .$3,153,611,819 Interest, dividends and rents. 876,143,383 Other receipts	 205,991,004
During those fifty-eight years the total dividends paid to shareholders of insurance companies was $29,092,923, seven-tenths of one per cent of the income. On the other hand, during the same period there was paid in dividends to policy-holders the sum of $413,347,725.


Mr. MORAND:: That includes mutual
companies?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, that includes mutual companies, Canadian companies of all kinds.


Charles A. Stewart: Canadian and foreign business?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am speaking only of
Canadian companies but that includes the foreign business as well as Canadian business.
I propose in a moment to deal with the question of foreign business of Canadian com-

Ltje Insurance-Mr. Rhodes
panies. Now my hon. friend did not say so in words, but I assume he subscribes to the point of view of his leader the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who has stated that he does not advocate confiscation, that he believes that where the state acquires private undertakings it should compensate the owners. That being so we must look into the question of the liabilities involved in case the Dominion of Canada were to determine to take over the life insurance business of existing companies. My hon. friend gave the paid up capital of insurance companies as $10,000,000. I would not for one moment suggest that my hon. friend would deliberately mislead the house, but he altogether failed to take into consideration the premiums which were paid on subscriptions to stock in insurance companies, which represent several millions. He failed to take into account the accumulated earnings which appear to the credit of Shareholders, which represent many millions more.


William Irvine: All stolen from the policyholders.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, I do not subscribe to that point of view ait all.


William Irvine: I do.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not stolen from the policyholders at all. As a matter of fact under the law shareholders of insurance companies are entitled to take up to ten per cent of the earnings of the company. But voluntarily they have reduced that to five per cent, leaving the remaining ninety-five per cent available for the benefit of the policy-holders. Some companies have never taken full advantage of that five per cent; they have allowed substantial sums of money to appear as accumulated reserves for the policy-holders.
Assuming that it were desirable to take over the insurance business in Canada, what does it involve in the way of immediate commitment on the part of the dominion? As of December 31, 1928, the stocks of the Canadian insurance companies were selling at a market value of $94,000,000. I have no doubt that at once I will be met with the statement that those were boom times and that this was an inflated value. I am quite prepared to subscribe to that point of view. In this year of depression these same stocks represent a value of no less than $34,000,000; in other words the value of the stocks of the insurance companies held by the shareholders in Canada could be sold, on the present depressed market, for $34,000,000. I think it is fair to say that the main factor which determines the value of
a stock on the stock exchange is its earning power; there are other factors as well but the main factor is the earning power. As the stock was selling at too high a figure in 1928 I submit that it is selling at too low a figure to-day, because the earnings of the insurance companies are very small. Consequently the price has gone lower than the actual value. That price of $34,000,000 has no regard whatever to the equities behind these shares, so I will take an arbitrary figure of $50,000,000 as being certainly a fair figure though, probably too low, of the cost if we desired arbitrarily to take over the insurance companies in Canada.
At 4i per cent, which is the price we have to pay for money to-day, with that cost of $50,000,000, in order to break even we would require a revenue of $2,250,000 a year. As a matter of fact the total dividends paid to shareholders of Canadian companies last year was less than half that amount, so that upon the mere basis of dollars and cents we would be confronted immediately with two things. First we would be increasing the national debt by the sum I have indicated, and in addition we would be creating a yearly obligation in the form of interest which would require us to take more from the insurance policyholders than is being taken under private management.
In concluding his remarks my hon. friend said that we must make this nationalization compulsory. It may be that his advocacy of that policy came at the end of his speech, when' he was a bit hurried for time, but I noticed that he did nothing more than merely assert that this was what we should do. There are several questions I should like to put to my hon. friend. Assuming that it were desirable to take over the whole of the insurance business and it were wise to make insurance compulsory what would he do in the case of the man who says, " I cannot pay." Would he insure every adult over the age of twenty-one, without medical inspection and without regard to health? If he did so his cost of insurance would be infinitely more than it is to-day, because one of the reasons why the cost of insurance is kept at a low figure is the very careful selection made by the life insurance companies.
Just on that point let me say that my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Ger-shaw) put his finger upon one of the greatest services that is being rendered by the insurance companies. They do not by any means confine their activities to the endeavour to sell insurance in order to make a profit; they enter very largely into social service
*478
Lije Insurance-Mr. Rhodes

activities, which are of lasting benefit to the health of the people of the country, by their social service work, their support of public health institutions, public health education and control, especially with regard to maternal and infantile mortality and tuberculosis, and the provisions obtaining in many companies which call for medical inspection on the part of policyholders at stated periods.
To-day in Canada there are policies in effect, issued by Canadian life insurance companies, aggregating somewhere in the neighbourhood of seven thousand million dollars. That is the face value; I think I can find the exact figures here. The exact figure is $7,225,000,000; that is the face value of insurance policies issued by Canadian insurance companies, but of that sum only $4,300,000,000 is applicable to policies issued within the Dominion of Canada. The remainder, $2,900,000,000 represents the aggregate face value of policies issued in foreign countries. So I put this question to my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin:	If he is going to nationalize
the insurance business in Canada what is to be done with respect to the insurance business in foreign countries? Are we to lose that business? Certainly we cannot retain it unless we allow reciprocal rights to those in other countries to insure in Canada, because I may point out to my hon. friend that one-third of the total insurance business in Canada is done by companies in foreign countries. If my hon. friend does restrict Canadian insurance companies to the Canadian field he cuts off that business, and in doing so he limits that spread of which he spoke a while ago when he said that the more insurance policies issued and the larger number of people insured, the cheaper the insurance would be for the individual.
In that connection, lest I forget, let me point out that if he is going to take over the insurance business in Canada as a national undertaking, what is he going to do with that amount of insurance now held in Canada by foreign companies? If he takes it over he has to compensate, and if he compensates he has to make a further commitment in addition to the figures which I gave a short time ago.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister the value of the policies held in Canada by American or other foreign companies?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not sure that I have those figures under my hand. If I have them I will try to give them before I conclude. My hon. friend did not say so, in so many words, but he clearly left the im-(Mr. Rhodes.]
pression upon the house that if insurance were conducted by the country the matter of profit would be eliminated and that as a result insurance would be cheaper for the individual. In that respect we have before us experience in life insurance covering a period of a great many years and this experience does not bear out the assertion made by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. On the contrary, may I explain that in Canada we have a scheme of insurance covering civil servants which has been in effect for some forty years. There are some 40,000 civil servants in Canada who would be entitled to the benefits of this insurance scheme; however, despite the fact that the scheme has been in effect for the period of time I have stated there are to-day only 6,731 civil servants who have embraced the opportunity of insuring their lives through this medium. That is the position, notwithstanding the fact that the premiums are so low that they do not allow anything whatsoever for overhead costs. Those costs are borne entirely by the taxpayers of Canada. And I should like hon. members to bear in mind that I am not complaining.
Mr. McKiENZIE (Assiniboia): Is that confined entirely to the civil servants?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. It is estimated that the rates on that insurance are something like 75 per cent of those on ordinary non-participating insurance offered by the life companies. One of the reasons it was placed at such a low figure was to effect a compensating advantage in favour of the civil servants when in 1893 the Civil Service Superannuation Act was amended and larger contributions were called for.


Mr.   MGRAND@: Does that insurance actuarially carry itself?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No. I am speaking subject to correction, but I believe it is correct to say that on an actuarial basis it does not oarry itself, apart altogether from the cost of overhead which I have mentioned.
Mr. MoGIBBON: What contribution, if any, does the government make?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The whole cost of management, the expenses in connection with staff, stationery and so on. Then, of course it guarantees payment.


William Irvine: What sort of insurance is it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Life insurance.


William Irvine: Well, there are various kinds of life insurance; what sort is it?

Life Insurance-Mr. Rhodes


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Probably the nearest example we can get concerning the efficiency of state life insurance as contrasted with that conducted by private companies is to be found in New Zealand. In that country the two types of insurance for a period of sixty years operated side by side. The facts are that to-day the total amount of insurance conducted by the state of New Zealand amounts to $104,000,000 whereas that conducted by the private companies amounts to $444,000,000. Not only is the amount under the control of private oompanies more than four times as large, but the private company business has tended to increase at a ratio greater than that of the state. That is the position in a country which is perhaps less subject to outside influence than obtains in most countries.


William Daum Euler: Has the minister any information on the point as to whether or not, because of the fact that the state is in the insurance business in New Zealand, the rates have possibly been reduced as a result of state competition?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would ask the hon. member to keep that point in mind, and I shall answer it before I have completed my remarks. At all events, I shall give the answer as I see it. In the last twenty years the amount of insurance conducted by the state of New Zealand has increased by ninety per cent whereas in the same period the amount of insurance effected by private companies has increased by 250 per cent.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: How do the rates compare?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With the rates in Canada?


James Dew Chaplin: The rates of the two systems in New Zealand?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Their rates must be
similar, otherwise the proportion of insurance conducted by the state would tend to increase, rather than diminish, with respect to the total volume of insurance in force. That thought leads me to say that insurance is a very peculiar business; I know of none other . comparable to it. It is a type of business that has to be sold. It is a commodity the selling of which requires intensive effort. I believe that fact is proven beyond doubt by the circumstances that where you find state and private companies competing the private company wins out on every occasion.
Answering the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) may I say that when the royal commission on insurance sat here in 1906 this very question was raised. I have before me a portion of the evidence given
by Mr. Thomas Bradshaw, who, at that time, was general manager of the Imperial Life Insurance Company. Perhaps it would not be amiss to read the whole of it, despite the fact that it is a fairly long paragraph.
I am afraid my views are not in accord with the views of most of my colleagues, but I Judge that they will give me credit for sincerity in holding the views I do upon that subject. I have endeavoured to consider this matter from a public standpoint strictly, and therefore believe that state insurance is practical under certain conditions. I believe that state insurance would have a most helpful effect in educating public opinion as to the merits and the necessity of life insurance, and thus incidentally prove of very great benefit to the life insurance companies of Canada. I believe that state insurance under a sound management would' be helpful in assisting the regular life officers in reducing their rate of expense, and also helpful in assisting in solving some of the other vexatious problems which they are constantly brought in contact with. I do not think that such a department would be antagonistic to the interest of the regular life insurance companies, but would rather Drove an adjunct to the propaganda of the popularizing of life insurance. I think it may be likened unto the Post Office Savings Department. The experience has been, I believe, that the Post Office Savings Department of Canada has rather helped the chartered banks, has assisted in popularizing the thrift and increased the savings accounts in the chartered banks of Canada. So for these reasons, and for some others, I believe that state life insurance would not be an evil, but a great blessing to the public of this country, and I believe that the field is broad enough and is growing, and is able to sustain not only a life insurance department but to sustain and to make even more prosperous the life insurance companies which are at present operating in this field.
And Mr. T. B. Macaulay of the Sun Life Insurance Company gave the following evidence on the same occasion:
Mr. Bradshaw's last remark covered nearly all I had to say on this matter, because my position is simply this: 1 have no objection in the world to the establishment of a state life insurance department if it is thought desirable. I quite agree with Mr. Bradshaw that if these different things that he speaks about, if such a department can be managed free from politics, if the management is given a free hand, if the investments are not put into government securities yielding very low rates of interest, but the same scale is exercised in selecting them as in the case of a regular life insurance company, and if all the other things that go to make a successful life insurance company are put into a government institution, I see no reason in the world why it should not be a first-class success. But even if it were a first-class success I do not think it would amount to anything better than another first-class company. That would be all that would result.
I might make some observations with respect to the government entering business.

Life Insurance-Mr. Rhodes

This is a matter to which I have given a great deal of attention, and I know the same applies to many hon. members of this house. There are certain activities, even in this country where the trend is to expect the government to do everything, which are peculiarly adaptable to government handling. On the other hand, there are many phases of business which the government is not equipped to handle. If there is one business more than any other business of a highly specialized character which the government cannot be equipped to handle, it is the life insurance business. I submit in all seriousness that if it were possible to take over the life insurance business, assuming that it could be conducted by the government as efficiently as it is conducted as a private enterprise-I do not admit that but I will assume it for the sake of argument - it would lose that driving force without which the business would not increase and prosper as has been the case under private management. This is one of the classes of business which the government ought not to engage in unless it does so in competition with private enterprise and obtains the benefit of the stimulus which comes from competition. Even then it loses out in competition with private business as has been proven by experience not only in New Zealand but in Canada. We might take the case of England where insurance was sold through the postoffice for a great number of years. This system was in force from 1864 but was abandoned in 1928. The insurance was sold at less than cost but the whole matter was the subject of an investigation in 1920 by a committee presided over by Lord Parmoor. That committee found that although the expenditure incurred in administration was low and the terms of insurance much more favourable than those offered by insurance companies, the number of applications for insurance was extremely small and the system could only be described as a failure, one reason for this being that the system was not competitive and did not adopt canvassing methods. In July, 1928. the select committee on estimates recommended that post office life insurance business should be discontinued. This goes to illustrate that where you do not have that driving power behind the seeking for business, which I submit you cannot have in a state insurance, if you do not fail, you certainly are not going to have that degree of success which obtains in the case of a private company.


William Irvine: I suggest also that that
might be regarded as illustrating the power of the insurance companies over the administration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I hope my hon. friend
will not think I am disrespectful but I must state that he had his full forty minutes during which I did not make one single interruption. He has interrupted eight or nine times and in addition he will have an opportunity to reply. That ought to be sufficient for the purposes of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin and he should not interrupt me in the course of remarks which of necessity have to be given without that degree of preparation which I should like to have in dealing with a subject of this importance.


Charles A. Stewart: Would the minister say a word or two about the compulsory aspect of the matter?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) has asked me to say something further with respect to the compulsory aspect of this matter. I must say that I was rather amazed at the suggestion of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. I had not given thought to that phase of the matter but I think the queries which I put to him indicate what is in my mind. What machinery could the government adopt to compel an individual to pay for insurance, even assuming that he is physically fit and a proper subject for insurance? The most the government could do would be to put him in gaol if he did not pay and1 that only makes the second condition worse than the first. We not only do not get the amount of the premium which he owes but we are put to the expense of providing him with free board and lodging. Are we to insure every individual when he reaches the age of twenty-one without any reference to his physical condition ? If that be so, then we will have to take in the lame, the halt and the blind. Are we to enter upon a gigantic scheme of benevolence and not have the matter dealt with upon an actuarial basis? The other alternative is to have this insurance stand upon its own feet and make the premium at least sufficient to carry the "policy. In this case we would be confronted with such high premiums that no one would insure. This seems to me to be the obvious answer.
I appreciate that all my hon. friend asks for in his resolution is:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the advisability of nationalizing life insurance.
But I would not wish it to be thought that the government is prepared to consider the nationalizing of insurance. Therefore, this

Life Insurance-Mr. Spencer
resolution cannot be accepted by the house. It adopts a principle which, in my judgment, is unworkable. No public reason has been given why it should be introduced. We are being well served at the moment. On the one hand we have the benefit of private management, with the urge which must be behind private management if they are to make a success of a business of that character. On the other hand, we have the benefit of supervision which has been of a singularly high type. This may be because we have been served by one of the most efficient public servants with whom I have come in contact in the person of the Superintendent of Insurance. I do know that the manner in which he has conducted his inspection has caused the insurance department of the Dominion of Canada to be looked up to as a pattern and an example by other countries of the world. On a recent visit of mine to the United States I had the privilege of meeting the members of ithe life insurance presidents' association during their annual meeting in New York. I was struck with the flattering remarks made by all of those who were associated with the insurance industry of that country as to the character and method of our inspection.
I hope the house in its wisdom will reject this resolution.
Mr. HENRY E. SPENCER (Battle River): The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) does not seem to be enthusiastically in favour of the resolution before 'the house. I agree that we have reason to be proud of our insurance companies in that they have not collapsed under this crisis, but they may have been kept going simply because of the penalties they have taken out of the people who have been insured.
I was very glad to learn that the Minister of Finance is critical of the very high salaries that are being paid in the insurance world to-day, although he rather implied that if you got cheaper men they would not be worth anything at all. But when the enormous salaries that are being paid, as stated by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), are recalled, higher salaries perhaps than are being paid to any other executives, even such high executives of the United States government as were mentioned, and when it is realized that these salaries have been increased as the depression has deepened, I think it will be agreed that it is time we asked some questions about these enhanced salaries. I would point out to the Minister of Finance that it is not always right to say that if you 74726-31
pay a less salary you do not get the same service. For if I might refer to the minister's own last words, we have in the employ of the dominion government one of the most valuable men possibly in the insurance world. He is doing a most excellent work, and he is to-day getting only one-twentieth of some of the high salaries that have been mentioned on the floor of the house to-day. So it is not necessarily a case of paying very high salaries to get efficient business men. I would also point out that although the insurance companies have not failed, it has been due largely to the fact that we have most efficient civil servants looking after their integrity. It is only a few years ago, on December 1, 1931, that a special order in council had to be passed to enable insurance companies in Canada to value their securities above the market price. I know that this was not done possibly except for the sake of one insurance company, but all the insurance companies had to accept what was being done.
I would also refer to the fact that the general manager of that one particular company was getting, and I suppose he is getting today, no less a sum than S100,080, and in spite of that nice little salary his company was so badly managed that he had to write off not only millions but hundreds of millions in the value of its securities due to the fall in the value of common stocks owned by his company.
The minister also referred to the very low cost of Canadian insurance. I wonder if he really heard the figures that were given by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin who pointed out that in the years 1930, 1931 and 1932 lapsed policies amounted to $1,200,000,000 and surrendered policies which people could not continue ito carry to no less a sum than $787,000,000. Surely there is something wrong with our life insurance business when over two billions of dollars of insurance has to be dropped in the course of a few years. Does that not show, as the mover of the resolution very well pointed out, that life insurance is too expensive. It is too expensive partly because of the enormous amount of overlapping. I understand that to get the first premium it costs, according to the figures given, anything from 48 to 75 per cent of the amount of the first premium.
The Minister of Finance started out and tried to build up a case against state life insurance, but he certainly cannot say with the short term insurance we have to-day, even though no insurance company may have failed, that we are giving the people of Canada

4S2
Life Insurance-Mr. Luchkovich

an opportunity to get reasonable life insurance.
Some years ago I happened to be taking out some insurance in one of our western cities, and I said to the chief official of the company, "You know. I am of the opinion that life insurance should be a state function." And to my surprise he replied, "Of course it should. That is one of the functions the state should look after, but as long as the state is not doing it, we take the opportunity of going into the business." That is largely the reason why private insurance has gone ahead so far, because, although we have a little government insurance to-day, it is not being pressed while private insurance is being pressed very strongly. It is carried on by high pressure salesmanship, and the people pay, and pay very dearly. The point is that at the present time those who need insurance and should have it cannot get it. They have to pay too much for it, and when it comes to a time like we have had in the last few years, when conditions are hard, many who carry life insurance have to give up their policies.


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-. ville):: I should like to give some time to this resolution, Mr. Speaker, but owing to the fact that I have a resolution to follow immediately, I shall have to give the resolution of my hon. friend from Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) the minimum of attention in order that I can give the maximum to my own, interested as I am in insurance.
My remarks on the resolution now before us are based on certain statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). He predicates his remarks on individual initiative, and also on the rights of private property. He began his speech by stating that he was proud of insurance as it is being conducted to-day in Canada by the private companies, but I would point out that the point is not so much whether we are proud of the present insurance system as run by private individuals in this country as it is a question whether the business could not be more effectively and efficiently and cheaply run by the state.
The Minister of Finance instanced insurance in the civil service as a criterion by which we could judge the business of insurance if controlled by the state, but he gave no facts or conditions whatsoever in regard to that, and therefore in this house at least to-day we are not in a position to measure what success state insurance would have as judged by insurance as it is being carried on in the civil service to-day.

The minister also said that the present day insurance companies are doing everything possible to prolong the life of their policyholders. But it seems to me that insurance as it is controlled to-day by private enterprise is more interested in the financial health of the shareholders thereof than in the health of the policy-holders. Only two years ago the government had to come as a sort of physician to the rescue to save insurance companies through an order in council by pegging their shares, that is, by striking an average price over five different periods. If the minister predicates his statement on private enterprise, I might say that the state meanwhile has usually shown far greater solicitude for the rights of property than for the rights of man. Joseph Chamberlain made this statement some years ago:
The rights of property have been so much extended that the rights of the community have almost altogether disappeared, and it is hardly too much to say that the prosperity and comfort and the liberties of a great proportion of the population have been laid at the feet of .a small number of proprietors, who neither toil nor spin.
Most of those shareholders surely are in the position of those who neither toil nor spin. Certainly a great deal of the exorbitant profits which they have made have not been earned through any excessive toiling or spinning. Mr. I/ewis, another authority on insurance, has this to say in regard to state insurance control:
The state should move cautiously and tentatively in the direction of experiment; but, as the evolution of the modern state plainly shows, must move. It must often subordinate the independence of the individual to the general good; it must work out many of its beneficent purposes by collective means; it must sometimes compel the individual to do that which he ought to be willing to do.
I maintain that nothing said in the house to-day Aows that insurance could not be efficiently and effectively carried on by the state. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has said that the insurance business is too intricate to be carried on by the state, I still hold that it is possible for the state to cany on insurance very efficiently and effectively. It is no great mystery; the business of insurance in both this country and all others is to-day the safest I know. The application of the insurance principle, in my opinion, presents no great difficulties or risks. It is not, as has been suggested, some venture upon unknown seas; it is the safest business in the whole world. It as not as complex as the Minister

Life Insurance-Mr. Irvine
of Finance would have this house believe. Therefore, I think for the state to assume the business of insurance would not involve its entering upon any new untried and dangerous ground. Insurance under government operation would be purely mutual, and if it should be administered on a basis of profits, the profits would certainly go to the state treasury rather than to the pockets of shareholders of private companies as is 'the practice at present. State ownership would prevent the system of interlocking directorship which we have in this country at the present time and through the instrumentality of which 8200,000,000 in worthless shares have been thrown upon the present insurance companies to the detriment of the policyholders thereof.
The first and fundamental principle of insurance is mutuality, the principle of each for all and all for each. Doctor Gerhart has said this in regard to insurance control by the state:
All human progress which is essentially an increase in social well-being has arisen from some improved method of cooperation, whether this new form of cooperation has resulted from private initiative or from public compulsion in obedience to enacted law. There is probably no other form of cooperation which is so fundamentally valuable to the cooperative members, indiscriminately, rather than particular members, than insurance.
In insurance is found every essence of cooperation. If that is so, I hold that any cooperative movement would be more successful, controlled by the state than it is at the present time, controlled by private individuals. In Italy there is a criterion by which we can judge state insurance. They have a monopoly of insurance there; by the Italian law of 1912 insurance in that country has been made a state monopoly. The issue of all policies of life insurance is entrusted to a national institute of insurance, a department of the state to which the state treasury issues the money necessary for its operations and whatever profit results does not go to the normal expenses of the state but is set aside in toto for the specific social purpose of providing pensions for workingmen.
Switzerland also provides for state monopoly of insurance, especially in the case of accidents and sickness. New Zealand at the present time has a system of state insurance, although competition of private companies is allowed there. I believe, fundamentally, scientifically and mathematically, state control of insurance is advisable, practicable and possible. If we had state insurance it would certainly aid the Minister of Finance in financ-74726-31J
ing the affairs of Canada more efficiently than is being done at the present time. Bonds could be sold to these insurance companies and I do not see why investments should not be limited to government bonds rather than allow the managers, presidents, administrations of the present concerns to gamble in all kinds of worthless shares and even in all sorts of worthless mortgages. In insurance as it is being carried on to-day by private concerns, there is too much overhead, too much overlapping, too many agency branches overlapping throughout the country. It has been suggested that if insurance were made a government monopoly, this would entail the confiscation of the buildings of these private concerns, but in Edmonton most of the buildings in which these insurance companies do their business do not belong to the companies; they are rented, and most of the business in Ottawa is also done in rented buildings. It is only at headquarters in Toronto and similar places that they actually own their buildings.
I shall conclude with the remark that under state supervision of insurance the families and the policyholders would be better safeguarded than they are now under privately owned insurance companies.


William Irvine: I am glad to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is not a great deal to which to reply. Not much objection has been taken to the resolution, and the arguments of those who did take objection were not effective. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), was the chief objector to the motion. He, speaking for the government of course, says the government will not let it be thought that they are willing even to consider such a resolution. Let me say to my hon. friend that the government might better consider it. Let me also say that it is only too obvious that so far the government have not considered it. This is not a question that can be thrown aside with that suggestion of untouchability. I hope my hon. friend will not take that attitude with regard to other matters of this sort. The government has a duty to consider whether the people of Canada can get safer and cheaper life insurance through government ownership and control than through private companies
The Minister of Finance says that while I stated that life insurance companies in Canada are perhaps as good as those in any other country, I suggested the contrary, when I quoted findings with regard to insurance companies in New York and pointed out that the same might be true of some companies in
Lije Insurance-Mr. Irvine

Canada. When I say that Canadian companies are as safe and as efficiently managed as any others I also say that they are not any better managed or any more efficient than companies in other parts of the world. So when we find certain conditions in connection with well-managed and safe companies in New York it is reasonable to suppose that you could find pretty much the same thing in regard to Canadian companies, particularly when some of those New York companies are doing business in Canada.
The minister also said there was no criticism to be made about high salaries in Canada. Again I want to tell him that some of the companies to which I referred do business in Canada. And may I suggest to him that I know there are managers of insurance companies in Canada getting salaries they are incapable of earning, and they can do that only at the expense of the policyholders.
The minister dealt with the liabilities involved, but I am bound to say that I know no more about the liabilities involved than I did before the minister started. No doubt that is my fault, but so far as I am concerned his presentation was so utterly confusing that I was not able to follow it. I would say that if the liabilities have to be taken over and met in the way the Minister of Finance tried to describe I am sure this is not the government to do it; we will have to wait until we get some other government, for apparently there is not the knowledge of insurance or the appreciation of its importance to the average citizen that we would expect from a government that could be expected to handle adequately a business of that sort.
With regard to the compulsory feature, the Minister of Finance thinks he has knocked my whole argument into a cocked hat when he asks: What would you do with a man who could not or would not pay his premium? Well, what do you do with anybody who does not obey the law of the country? There must be punishment of some sort. What is done now? When a man cannot pay the premium charged by private companies, and dies leaving his children starving, what do we do? The community takes care of his children and feeds them, whether it be the municipality or the provincial government. So it could not be any worse under compulsory insurance. But I am quite sure that if the minister turned that great mind which he undoubtedly possesses to the simple little problem of what to do with a man who refuses to pay his premium under a compulsory system he could find some way of dealing with the matter. I believe I could.

Then he says: Are we to look after the lame, the halt, and the blind? What else is insurance for? What does my hon. friend suppose it is for? Would he look after the strong and those who can foresee everything? Such people do not need to be looked after. It is the very essence of insurance that it takes care of the lame, the halt and the blind; if it does not do that it is not worth having. As I pointed out, we, as a nation, have to do that already whether we go into the insurance business or not. Having then to do it for those who cannot pay anything at all surety we should not allow private companies to skim the cream by taking the business of people who can pay and leaving the state to carry those who cannot.
Then as to what is to be done with the insurance business in foreign countries, are we as a nation to go into foreign countries to do business? No, let us mind our own business. Our business is to insure the people of Canada. We are not interested in trying to insure Americans and the people in other countries; we will let them look after their own business.
Then the minister said that in New Zealand they have private companies operating in competition with government insurance, and if I got his figures correctly I think they were to the advantage of the private companies.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Four to one.


William Irvine: I would expect that. Who
would not? If private companies in New Zealand had as much influence over national affairs as private companies have in Canada, I wonder it is not six to one. Let me tell the minister that it is not possible to carry on national insurance schemes side by side with private companies in Canada; it simply cannot be done. To quote figures of that sort is purely and simply absurd. I know of no nationalization proposal in this country which when attempted has not been used solely with the idea of proving that it cannot be done-thus safeguarding the preserves of private enterprise and contending from the designed failure of public ownership efforts, that only private companies can do the business efficiently. Certainly I do not wonder at hon. gentlemen, or certain gentlemen who may not be honourable quoted by the minister, being willing to let the nation go into insurance in competition with private companies. Of course they would leave the nation to do all the educational work respecting insurance, and we may be sure they would try to reap all the business for the private

Life Insurance-Division
companies. That is what they do in New Zealand; that is what they wo-uld do here under that system. For my part I would certainly vote against a system of government insurance on a 'voluntary basis and in competition with insurance companies.
I think that covers all that the minister said. I still think, with my colleague who has just sat down, that no argument has been advanced to show the Canadian people why the government should not manage the insurance business of this country for the benefit of the people of this country. That question still remains to be considered. But we are told that the government will not even consider it. A\ ell then, we shall have to look for a government that will consider this and other questions of like importance.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.


Mr. LOUCKS:: I was paired with the hon member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.


Mr. VADLANCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the government giving consideration to the question.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit). Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.


Mr. PERRAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted I would have voted against'the resolution.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil)
I did not know how he was going to vote, sc I did not vote.


Charles A. Stewart: I was paired with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy). Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: I was paired with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland). Had I voted I would have voted for the resolution.


Eusèbe Roberge: 
Mr. FAFARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) . Had I voted I would have voted against the resolution.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. CANADA'S FOREIGN POLICY



PROPOSED REFERENCE TO INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE FOR STUDY AND REPORT

Michael Luchkovich: That, in the opinion of this house, the whole subject of foreign policy of Canada be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations for study and report.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the whole subject of foreign policy of. Canada be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations for study and report.
My remarks on this motion might be prefaced by the question: Hias Canada a foreign policy and, if so, what is that foreign policy? The foreign policy of Canada should be considered relatively in order to arrive at any intelligent understanding of the problem. Thus, the promotion of our commercial and financial interests abroad, the provision of maximum security at home and the minimum of commitments in order to achieve this end, just about sum up what is involved in such a policy. If Canada has a foreign policy, very few people realize the fact or knowing so, have an intimate knowledge of the working thereof. This lack of knowledge is not limited to the rank and file in Canada. I wonder how many hon. members of this house could explain Canada's foreign policy? Yet in this great age of interdependence of nations a knowledge of foreign policy is absolutely essential. More and more clearly are people beginning to realize the economic unity of the world and the impossibility of any country living unto itself. Things have come to a pass where our neighbour's troubles are merged with our own difficulties and where a solution of the latter cannot be hoped for without n solution of the former. While foreign policies Olr. Roberge.]
must always envisage the possibility of war, they must at the same time strive peacefully for peaceful objeots. At 'the present time the world is clamouring for peace, but there is no peace. It awaits the return of prosperity, but there is no prosperity, for we cannot have the latter without a propagation and realization of the former. We cannot have our cake and eat it too; we cannot make an omelette without breaking the e>ggs. We cannot maintain peace without the application of the essential contributory factors; we cannot return to prosperity without a cultivation of the peaceful arts and pursuits incidental thereto.
Canada's foreign policy primarily must be considered from two angles. First, our status in the British commonwealth of nations and, second, our attitude to the rest of the world, especially the United States. Our foreign policy must really be considered from a threefold angle. First, there is our position on the North American continent with our close proximity to the United States; there is our attitude to Great Britain and the other dominions, and there is our attitude as a member of the League of Nations. For many years Canada was regarded as a colony, as a mere child that had to be looked after until it reached the age of maturity. This weaning process lasted until comparatively recent times when Canada began to ask for the right to do things on her own initiative. Prior to 1914 everything was conducted through British diplomatic channels but consequent upon a series of imperial conferences as well as the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, a large degree of autonomy was allowed the various dominions. Therefore, Canada to-day is considered as an equal partner in the British commonwealth of nations, a sovereign state, a sort of daughter in her mother's house but mistress in her own. If Canada is now on an equality with the mother country, as has been said already, it would naturally imply freedom of control by Great Britain in the conduct of the foreign policy of this country but the actual conduct of foreign affairs seeims likely to be carried on for some time yet by Great Britain.
Canada's weakness in this respect is due to the lack of a developed foreign policy technique, an experienced personnel and a diplomatic tradition. There is also the tendency of each sovereign member of the commonwealth to adopt the regional rather than the collective idea of security. The term " general policy " is used somewhat loosely for the diversified interests of the various members of the commonwealth will preclude any real commonwealth foreign policy. The foreign

Ccinnda's Foreign Policy-Mr. Luchkovich
interests of the members of the commonwealth being regional rather than general, foreign policy machinery possibly will have to be set up to strengthen the political cooperation between those members of the commonwealth which, in a specific region, may have mutual interests or even mutual conflicts. For instance, Great Britain and Canada are interested in the United States and that country must be considered as the keystone of our foreign policy.
The British Empire is not a political but a moral entity, almost wholly dependent for its existence upon sentiment. AH the members thereof mutually enjoy certain traditions, laws and institutions but it is doubtful if any general foreign policy would be possible except in the case of certain major issues. In so far as security is concerned, as I have said already, both Great Britain and Canada must regard the United States as being the keystone of their foreign policy, but the same oould not be said of South Africa. For instance, what connection is there between New Guinea and the Canadian Northwest? Living in close proximity to a powerful neighbour, Canada certainly must have interests in common with that neighbour. There are many who believe that both the United States and Canada are opposed to the superstate idea of the League of Nations as well as to any foreign entanglements in Europe. The Monroe doctrine gives Canada potential protection from foreign attack while the British navy affords both actual and psychological security on both coasts. Canadas position on the North American continent and her growing interests in the Pacific identify still further her relations with the United States in connection with far eastern questions.
Anomalies in the foreign policy situation must undoubtedly appear. While the United States affords Canada a potential protection, the Dominion of Canada nevertheless is not in the least inclined to join any pan-American union that would involve Canada in contentious issues between the United States and the Latin American republics. Any discussion of foreign policies would then have to take into consideration the question whether or not Canada should undertake political and economic obligations in matters in which this country has merely a remote and indirect [DOT] interest.
As regards British-Canadian relations it has often been asked whether such obligations should bind Canada as a fully sovereign power or state. The following wording in Article
IX of the Locarno Treaty of Mutual Guarantee, 1925, has been recommended as a remedial routine practice:
The present treaty shall impose no obligation upon any of the British dominions, or upon India, unless the government of such dominions, or of India, signifies its acceptance thereof.
Our associations with Great Britain have provided us with a large available market as well as with military and naval protection. On the other hand, it has involved us in many controversies and conflicts. What therefore, Mr. Speaker, shall be the attitude of Canada in the event of British participation or entanglement in another European or far eastern war? Competent observers throughout the world feel that war is imminent in both these fields. Is the entrance of Great Britain to involve Canadian participation as well? That is a matter which I think is worth discussing in the committee on industrial and international relations.
The League of Nations, to which Canada belongs, and which in theory at least was supposed to be a sort of superstate, bears little relation to its pattern, the covenant. In an ideal international society the League of Nations might provide complete security, and in addition enable its members to deal justly with such matters as trade, tariffs, currency, and so forth, but the events of the past three years indicate that we have not yet reached this utopian stage, and it is desirable, while keeping the league ideal in mind as our ultimate goal, to examine the realities of the world situation. In a real world we must deal with conditions, and not theories. The League of Nations, while it is an ideal, has nothing more practical to offer than persuasion to set right a world where might still seems to be the only dominating force. No one will say that Japan had any just claim to Manchuria, but she took it nevertheless with the tacit consent of countries which looked upon that action as a check upon Russian designs in Europe.
How are you going to deal with nations that regard their own interest as primary and that of other countries as secondary, or which consider their own survival alone as important, and the destruction of other countries as a matter of indifference? How are you going to apply the Kellogg peace pact to outlaw wars when at the same time it permits of defensive war? Even Japan has claimed that her recent warlike activities in Manchuria and China were prompted by defensive considerations. Other countries have also done the same thing in the past.
_	COMMONS
Canada s Foreign Policy-Mr. Luchkovich
In the present unstable condition of Europe most of its countries are more interested in political and defensive relations than in economic. Unhampered by an impending attack, Canadians doubtlessly think more of economic relationships when dealing with foreign policies. There is no Versailles treaty to bother Canada and the United States, but that treaty has split Europe into two clear-cut camps-the status quo and revisionist groups, which will sooner or later come to grips on the European continent. The Versailles treaty, instead of settling matters, has only aggravated the situation. It has turned Europe into a sort of political and ethnological crazy quilt. Frontiers were fixed on no principle, ethnological, geographical or equitable, but were rather dictated by animosity, vindictiveness, Chauvinism and greed. The dispossessed countries swear to regain their lost territories, and the victorious states just as vigorously defend their ill-gotten gains. With Europe virtually sitting on top of a volcano which might at any moment erupt and light a flame throughout the world, the formulation of a Canadian foreign policy in regard to that continent is a matter of extreme delicacy and great caution.
What interests Canada is the possibility of British participation in such a war, and the effect of such participation on this dominion. 'Canada has had some experience of the external sacrifices and of the internal dissension caused by such participation, and it is a real question whether this dominion would survive as a political entity such another experience. Should Canada refuse the mother country support, or for that matter, should the remainder of the commonwealth refuse support to any one of its members whose existence was threatened, this one unifying tie will have disappeared and the empire as we understand it will have ceased to exist. To paraphrase the words of Hamlet, to be or not to be a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations would then be the question. Pulling somebody else's chestnuts out of the fire is too poor a reason for Canada to get mixed up in a war in which she is not at all directly interested, but on the other hand the breaking-up of the empire might be too great a sacrifice for her to stay out. Popular opinion in Canada would then have to be the deciding factor as to the action to be taken; for the empire is not a rigid but an elastic organization composed of the constituent elements, owing a common allegiance to the whole, but retaining the right to control its own domestic and foreign

affairs. If it is not desirable that Great Britain or any of the dominions should control those foreign affairs that are of primary concern to one dominion, so it is equally impossible and undesirable for the dominions to seek to control those foreign affairs which primarily affect Great Britain. But where the issues are of primary concern to all parts, they must then be dealt with by the empire as a whole. In the last great world war public opinion in the various dominions decided on participation along with the mother country. But a similar decision in another such contingency may not be unanimous. Foreign affairs nowadays have to do very largely with economic questions such as trade, tariff, coal or oil concessions, international debts, immigration, fisheries, power or navigation rights in boundary waters. As has already been pointed out by me, the tendency of Canada is to coordinate foreign relations with her economic relationships. Our policy, therefore, is formulated with a view to foster or improve our trade and commercial relations. For many decades the European market has absorbed the surplus products of this continent such as wheat, cotton, oil and many highly finished manufactures.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Cotton?


Michael Luchkovich: United States cotton. I had reference to this continent. Of late years, however, the accumulating bankruptcy consequent upon the last war has left Europe so weak and impoverished as to make it impossible to call forth anything like the trade the European market used to command in prewar days. Extreme economic nationalism is not only strangling trade among the various countries of Europe but directed toward keeping out Canadian products from what was and still might be a valuable market. It has also been suggested that Canada's position on the North American continent and her growing interest in the Pacific make her foreign policy on far eastern questions usually identical with those of the United States, that is, as regards matters of defence and security. Yet trade with the far east is a very desirable object. In 1930 the trade mission which was sent from this country to the orient to investigate trade possibilities there brought back the report that China and Japan constituted Canada's greatest and richest potential market. But how is Canada going to reconcile her desire for security with her desire for better markets? In this regard how is she going to reconcile her alliance with the United States with her

Canada's Foreign Policy-Mr. Luchkovich
status in the British commonwealth of nations? In an article dated June, 1933, in The Round Table, it is stated:
The strain put upon the relations between Canada and the United Kingdom because of the divergence of policy between the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom on the Sino-Japanese dispute has not yet had time to show its full effects. It may be that Sir John Simon has thrown Canada into the arms of the United States, as Professor Arnold Toynee sugested at Chatham House in February of last year. Be that as it may, the events of the last two years have shown how difficult it is for Canada and the United Kingdom to cooperate on foreign policy in matters concerning the far east, because of that fact that the foreign policy of the United Kingdom is at present dominated by European considerations, whereas the interests of Canada will in the future be mound up more closely with Far Eastern than European developments. But only a few Canadians are at present giving any consideration to the effect of far eastern affairs on Canada's future relations with the United Kingdom. Most of us are fervent believers in the doctrine of solvitur ambulando.
Since Canada has secured autonomy in the imperial field, she will naturally strive to secure or enlarge her activities in the international field. In other words, a foreign policy will have to be developed in Canada. Hitherto, being still in the colonial stage, all Canada's foreign responsibilities were handled by the mother country; but Canada having come of age, as it were, the necessity for clarifying her ideas on the realities of the international position has become readily apparent. The need is especialy urgent in view of the present right of each dominion to negotiate directly with foreign governments and also the established principle that this dominion is bound by a treaty signed by its representatives.
An attempt has been made in this short address briefly to touch upon some of the political combinations on which our foreign policy must be based. Great Britain as the mother country, the United States as a friendly neighbour and powerful state, and the far east as a potential market or potential source of attack, form a triangle in our poli-cal existence around which most certainly our foreign policy has to be formulated. Of course in this regard the continent of Europe cannot be ignored or excluded, but Europe is not as immediate a menace as is the far east. The aim of this address is to draw attention to Canada's capacity to form and pursue a consistent foreign policy and to this end to point out to the house the necessity of a committee to study the whole matter. This may be a strange procedure, but in this regard I have a precedent in the United States which has a
foreign relations committee to which matters pertaining to foreign policy are usually referred. This body incidentally has power not only to advise, but also to withhold consent. In Canada, however, the matter of foreign policy is solely in the hands of the federal government. Few members know what is being done in this connection since the matter in Canada is not subject to constructive parliamentary criticism as it is in the United States. In view of Canada's rapid development and increasing international relationships it is thought the subject of foreign policy should receive greater consideration both within and without parliament. It has been suggested that to this end courses for the training of graduates in diplomacy should be given in all our Canadian universities and certainly a great deal more attention should be paid to this subject in parliamentary spheres. I know of no better body where this subject could be discussed than the committee on industrial and international relations. In view of our growing importance in the international field, a knowledge of foreign policy by parliament and the public at large is urgent. As to the actual administration of foreign affairs, there is no question that a competent and sufficient staff of properly trained men is necessary, but as to the actual elucidation of the matter and the dissemination of knowledge on such subjects, I know of no better method than 'to refer the whole matter to this committee on industrial and foreign relations for study and report.
If Canada is now a grown-up member of the commonwealth, then it is time that she should play her part like a mature person. This continual tugging at the maternal apronstrings and running to cover under the parental wing, as v^as Canada's metaphoric position prior to the passing of the Statute of Westminster and the various imperial conferences of recent times, most certainly would not be in keeping with the dignified status we now have in the British commonwealth and as a member of the League of Nations. If Canada is now daughter in her mother's house and mistress in her own. her policy should be formulated accordingly. The fearful cry-baby colonial inferiority complex of the past should make way for a more mature and dignified dominion status attitude. One obvious indication of such a stage of maturity would be the formulation of a real and genuine Canadian foreign policy. If Canada really is a nation, as we have recently been told she is, then one manifestation thereof would certainly be the formulation of such a policy.
I do not see why the whole matter of Canada's foreign policy should not be con-

Canada's Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
sidered and discussed by the committee on industrial and international relations for study and report. Why could not the various delegates that we have been sending to Europe and the League of Nations during the past few years give some report to the house on what is going on over there? We have at least two former ministerial delegates to the League of Nations, in the persons of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie), who most decidedly could tell us a great deal about it. This house could gather a vast amount of information if the matter were dealt with by the industrial and international relations committee. If the government is fearful of divulging certain information to the public at large it could easily ask that committee to hold some of its meetings in camera, or else give orders to the press not to report matters discussed therein. This is no unusual request, as matters of foreign policy are continually being discussed in the United States committee on foreign relations. Why, then, the reluctance to set up a similar committee in Canada? I am not asking for a new and separate committee; all I am requesting of this house is that the whole subject of the foreign policy of Canada be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations for study and report.
Mr. J.S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre): Mr. Speaker, I should like to be allowed to congratulate my colleague (Mr. Luchkovich) on his very fine presentation of what I regard as a most important problem. As I came into the chamber to-night a friend said: The trouble with this resolution is that it deals with a matter that is very academic.
I am afraid that pretty well represents the attitude of the large majority towards these questions; yet when we come to think of it, a few years ago we passed through the great world war which meant the loss of the lives of a large number of Canadians and the burden of an almost intolerable debt. One might think that having been precipitated into that conflict we would from then on take rather seriously our relationships with other nations. We are carrying the burden entailed by paying pensions and trying to raise the money to pay the interest on the war loans, and yet have little to say, and I believe are thinking very little, about our world relationships.
Last September in the city of Toronto there was held under the auspices of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs a British commonwealth relations conference which gave a good deal of attention to the question 
of Canada's foreign policy in relation to that of the empire. Although this conference was entirely unofficial and its meetings were held in camera, the discussions which took place were very illuminating indeed and ought to be of service throughout this country. I will not give the names of the delegates from the different dominions, other than perhaps those of the United Kingdom as they are best known to most of us. They included Viscount Cecil, Right Hon. Sir Herbert Samuel, Donald B. Somervell, Sir John Power, Philip J. Noel-Baker, Mr. Gathorne-Hardv, Hamilton W. Iverr, Professor Arnold J. Toynbee, John W. Wheeler-Bennett, and Professor A. E. Zimmern. That perhaps will give some idea of the character of the men who sat for some days and discussed questions of the kind referred to by the hon. member for Vegreville (M. Luchkovich)
I should like to read two paragraphs from the report of the rapporteur of the commission which dealt with the machinery required for cooperation in foreign policy. These paragraphs bring us right to the heart of the resolution before the house to-night:
There was general agreement that the supply of information furnished to dominion governments by the foreign affairs department of the Dominion office was full and regular, communications passing from the foreign office daily to those governments through the Dominions office. Copies of these documents were also supplied regularly to all the high commissioners in London, except to the High Commissioner of New Zealand who is content to receive only such documents as he a_sks for specially. An Australian member that the Australian liaison officer was able to perform a very useful function in amplifying and interpreting information by daily personal contact with the officers of the Dominions office, Foreign office, service department and other offices.
There was an equally general admission that the information forthcoming was neither passed on to nor discussed adequately by members of parliament, by the newspapers, or by the public. It was recognized that some of this information was necessarily confidential, but it was believed that much of it might profitably be passed on to parliament and the press. It was suggested that classification of Foreign office information as confidential, discretionary, or free might facilitate its dissemination, but it was objected that classification might make it easier for a harassed minister to shelter himself behind confidential dispatches. The trouble went deeper than that. It was noted that interest in the parliaments of South Africa and New Zealand at all events in the work of the J.L.O. was much greater than in the political work of the league and external affairs generally, partly at least because regular reports on the work of the I.L.O. were laid on the table. Generally speaking, in all dominions it was admitted that too often information on external affairs could only be extracted by questions in the house.

Canada's Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
I think probably that statement, which was compiled to represent the consensus of opinion of those present from all the dominions, fairly described the position in our own country.
Until very recently, in fact until the war, there was only one foreign country with which we had any close associations, the United States. And since we have always had an unguarded border there has been very little danger of military action there. Our relationships with the United States, on the whole, have had to do very largely with international trade. Possibly it is owing to that fact as well as to our distance from Europe that it is only in recent years that any question has arisen with regard to general world policies. But I submit that, as has been pointed out so clearly by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich), we have come to the point when we can no longer go along indifferent to the great world movements about us and to our relationships with the other nations. Whether we like it or not, since the war Canada has been drawn into world currents.
First of all, there is the question of our relationship to the United Kingdom and the whole British Empire. If all the parts of the British Empire were self-governing dominions, the question would foe exceedingly complicated, but in addition we have dependencies of all kinds, crown colonies, protectorates and so on, in almost every part of the world. It cannot be gainsaid that the conquests of Great Britain in earlier years have laid an enormous burden upon the motherland. As we look back over history we must confess that to a very considerable extent empire has meant and probably still means exploitation.
Without going into that matter, however, I would point out in this connection that so far as we are concerned, the policies of Great Britain in Egypt, in India, in Afghanistan, in Japan and in remote islands of the sea might very easily involve her in wiar, and if Great Britain is involved in war it is a question as to where Canada stands. It is all very well to say that Canada would respond immediately as she did in 1914. I am not at all sure of that. The question is whether we, with our status a3 a self-governing dominion, can be or should be called upon to join with Great Britain if she gets into some difficulty over policies concerning wrhich we had no control whatever, and in the making of which we have had no voice. That is an exceedingly important question.
Not long ago a prominent Canadian public man suggested that Canada should withdraw
from the League of Nations on the ground that matters were becoming so complicated that possibly it would be as well for us to get out while the going was good. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the selfsame argument that would lead us to leave the League of Nations would force us to sever our connection with the British Empire. The members of the British Empire are almost as far-flung as are the members of the League of Nations itself. The fact is that as long as we have a common crown we cannot very well remain indifferent to the policies of the United Kingdom. So surely it is an important thing that at this stage, in a time when we are not yet involved in war, we should know what our policy would be in case certain contingencies should arise.
Not only is Canada a member of the British Empire; she is also a member of the League of Nations, and as a member of the league she has undertaken some very serious responsibilities. I do not think most hon. gentlemen have stopped to think what really is involved in our membership in the league. I Should like to quote two paragraphs from the Treaty of Peace with regard to our commitments under the covenants. Article 16 states:
Should any member of the league resort to war in disregard of its covenants, under articles 12, 13 or 15, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the league, which hereby undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenantbreaking state, and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking state and the nationals of any other state, whether a member of the league or not. . . .
The members of the league agree, further, that they will mutually support one another in the financial and economic measures which are taken under this article, in order to minimize the loss and inconvenience resulting from the above measures, and that they will mutually support one another in resisting any special measures aimed at one of their number by the covenant-breaking state. . . .
It may be said that we are not going to take these covenants very seriously.


Peter McGibbon: Japan did not, did she?


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Neither did Canada ; if we had done so, Japan would not have gotten away with things as she did. That treaty of Versailles, which at the time was supposed to give promise of an era of peace, surely ought to mean something to us. If it means nothing whatever, I suppose the only thing for us to do is to get out of the league, but at the present, moment we are members
492	COMMONS
Canada's Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
of the league and as such are bound in honour, as well, I take it, as by what might be considered international law, to live up to our obligations.
More than that, however, we are not only members of the British Empire and of the League of Nations; whether we like it or not we are living in a closely integrated world. It is all very well to say that we should get out of the British Empire, if anyone does say so, or that we should get out of the League of Nations, as somebody has suggested. But we cannot get out of the world, and to-day the world is one vast neighbourhood. We can no longer maintain the policies of isolation which were possible for the United States and Canada until a comparatively few years ago. In the old days we used to think we could drive here, there or yonder without anyone to say us nay. To-day we cannot get through the city streets without rules of the road, traffic policemen and traffic signals of all kinds. In a modern, congested city street it is simply impossible to get along without having some very definite conventions by which we may determine our relationship to our neighbours.
That is the kind of world in which we live to-day. We cannot possibly live an isolated life. In the old days we might very well have said, "Well, if China and Japan want to go to war let them go to it; we will stay safely on this side of the Pacific." That would be quite an impossible thing for us to-day. Surely we have not forgotten that it was a murder away in Serbia that was the match that brought about the conflagration which spread to all parts of the world. We can no longer remain isolated; whether we like it or not we are in contact with the other nations of the world, even those in the most remote parts, and in my judgment we must build up some sort of world arrangement, some collective system, or we can look forward only to chaos and disaster in the years to come.
Without developing that thought further, though I think it is a vitally important question, I should like to point out that so far as this house is concerned we have in practice very few opportunities for the discussion of foreign policy. It is true that we may ask a question of the minister to which generally speaking, we do not receive any very illuminating answer. AVe may wait throughout the session until estimates are under consideration. Why it is. I do not know, but frequently the estimates for the Department of External Affairs come up for consideration about the last day of session when every hon. member

is tired out and wants to get away. I have noticed year after year, that there has been practically no chance for careful consideration of these matters.
I do not know that I could better illustrate the situation than to describe what occurred in connection with the very question concerning which one of the members interjected a remark, namely, the Manchurian affair. On November 18, 1932, I asked the Prime Minister the following question as to Canada's policy in the far east: "What, if any, is the policy of His Majesty's government in Canada in regard to the situation in the far east and to the Lytton report?" His reply, as it appears in Hansard of November 21, 1932 is, in part, as follows:
Perhaps I can best serve what I conceive to be the public interest by indicating that it is not thought desirable to enter into a discussion at this time with respect to a matter of this kind, for it not only cannot serve the public interest but would be anticipating action which might be taken, and therefore is to be deprecated. . . . Our relations to this matter arise primarily from the fact that we are a member of the league of nations and we must sit on that report and determine what action shall be taken to give effect or otherwise to the recommendations therein contained . . . but the broad general rule is that a matter that is sub judice, that is to say, a matter that is being considered by a body charged W'ith authority as is the league of nations-the assembly-with quasi judicial powers . . . should not be the subject of expressions of opinion publicly.
That, to me, is a most extraordinary statement. The League of Nations, a deliberative body of which we were a member, were considering a report. The league was not a court; the matter was not sub judice, but was one for general consideration. Yet, we in this House of Commons were denied the opportunity on that occasion of either discussing the matter or obtaining a statement as to the policy of the government.
The next reference to this matter was on December 8, 1932, when, at Geneva a statement was made by Mr. Cahan, Secretary of State, which aroused almost consternation across Canada. In an article appearing in Interdependence, March, 1933-a journal issued by the League of Nations Society in Canada-Professor Soward made the following devastating criticism:
A speech which never once endorsed directly league principles, which departed from our position of last March, which singled out the injured party for most of the recrimination, is not the sort of speech which some of his distinguished Conservative predecessors at Geneva, like Sir Robert Borden, Sir George Foster or Sir George Perley would have made.

Canada's Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
It falls far below the standard they set. Mr. Cahan's attitude is not the sort which Mr. Meighen assumed in the Imperial conference of 1921 when the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese alliance came before the conference.
Members will recall that Mr. Meighen took the position that our policy must be very closely related to that of the United States.
The next we heard of the far eastern questions was on January 30, 1933, when in a rather ambiguous statement the Prime Minister said:
The Secretary of State had his instructions, and he made it abundantly clear-I saw him in London-that his speech as a whole did not in any sense depart from them, although isolated sections of it might leave the impression that he was endeavouring to support one particular phase of the situation rather than another. I think the speech as a whole shows no departure from the general principles which I indicated to the house as being the views of the government in matters of this kind.
And he concluded:
As he will be back here very shortly he will be able to explain the situation fully.
The next development in that matter was a pronouncement of Canada's position by Doctor Riddell, and if I have had to criticize the ambiguity of the Prime Minister's statement and criticize the statement of the Secretary of -State I must confess that the statement given on behalf of this government by Doctor Riddell was an excellent one. Next we learned that Canada had become a member of the advisory council

which, I should judge, would be a rather important position-in connection with the Sino-Japanese situation. Since that time, with one exception to which I shall refer, we have had no information whatsoever with regard to the situation in the far east, and to this day we do not know what the policy of the government is.
-Some of us had been hoping that throughout the session we would have a chance to ask questions of the government, but no opportunity was granted until the estimates for the Department of External Affairs came up for consideration. The estimates were passed without any discussion whatever, one item being held over. Later, in the final rush, the item came before the committee at a time when very few hon. members knew th-a-t this important subject would be under consideration. On that occasion the Secretary of State made a statement which, at that late stage of proceedings, no one had a chance to discuss.
I place this matter before the house not in order to promote a discussion of the Japanese question -at this time, but rather -to indicate the lack of information regarding government
policy and the lack of opportunity given to hon. members to discuss matters of vital public importance.
I said a little while ago that we are a member of the League of Nations. We are also a member of the International Labour Organization. Each year delegations go to attend the conferences of these bodies. We have not had the advantage of having a report from our delegates. I am not blaming the present government for this; I do not want to be misunderstood. Attention is being called to this situation in the hope that possibly it may lead to the development of a procedure which will be more satisfactory than the -one which has come down to us from the past. It is true that last year Sir George Perley on his return from the disarmament conference did make a statement to the house, but it has not been the practice for us to have any statement from delegates returning from -the League of Nations. I believe all hon. members would be pleased to hear a report from the Minister of Railways, who has made some very excellent speeches outside the house. We should have the advantage of such speeches in the house.
One cannot attend the sessions of the House of Commons at Westminster without feeling that we enter there a very different atmosphere. England, although not actually a part of the European continent, is just on the edge and it is natural that European affairs should enter into discussions of ordinary matters of policy. We recognize that the parliament of the United Kingdom must discuss affairs relative to the whole British Empire and in Great Britain an opportunity is given for such discussion. A number of voluntary committees representing all sections of the house are continuously at work considering matters pertaining to foreign affairs.
I think it is taken for granted that an informed public opinion on these matters is highly desirable at the present time, but how can we hope that the public will become greatly interested in them if they receive no discussion in this parliament, if they are considered to be so far removed that members of parliament will not take the trouble to make inquiries concerning them or to discuss them as they would matters nearer home? It would seem to me that if the proposal of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luch-kovich) were carried out, it w-ould go a long way towards stimulating public opinion in this regard.
Hon. members will recall that a few years ago a committee on industrial and interna-
494	,	.	COMMONS
Canada's Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
tional relations was set up. A number of industrial matters were referred to that committee, such as minimum wages, unemployment insurance and so on. Unfortunately the law officers of the crown stated that a great many of these matters came under provincial jurisdiction and nothing very definite in the way of legislation came out of the inquiries. So far as I can recall, only one matter relative to international affairs was referred to the committee. This was the motion of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) that scholarships should be established for the study of international affairs. Again there was no very definite result from the inquiries of the committee because it was considered that this might be an educational matter and that provincial jurisdiction might be involved.
But there are other important matters which clearly come under federal jurisdiction. What are we going to do about the league? Are we going to continue our membership and, if so, what policy is Canada to advocate? I think we ought to know. Negotiations have been going -on between Sir John Simon and Italy, and as far as an outsider can determine, these negotiations might very easily weaken the influence of the league. I am glad to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in the house this evening, and I think we harm the right to know from him the attitude of the government in respect to this matter. It seems to me that Canada being a member of the league, we members of parliament have a right to information on such matters. If the government has formed some policy, the country should be informed as to what it is. The same thing is true in connection with the disarmament question. We have been a member of that conference which has dragged on year after year and which now seems destined to absolute failure. The conference has not been formally disbanded but in the meantime the making of munitions of war is being carried on at a tremendous rate. Are we making any representations to the league in this regard?
I am well aware that numerically Canada is a small nation, but the Prime Minister likes to tell us that we are the fifth exporting nation in the world. If that is so, we ought to be sufficiently important in world affairs to have something to say with regard to this matter. In one visit abroad to the league I was told again and again that Canada occupied a strategic position in world affairs through being a part of the British commonwealth of nations and being located on the North American continent side by side with the United

States. It was stated that Canada might be reasonably looked to to interpret the attitude and viewpoint of the United States toward other parts of the empire and to the League of Nations. I wonder if that is true?
Since Canada is located on the Pacific as well as on the Atlantic, we have vital interest in what is going on in the far east. One can hardly read the despatches recently appearing in the press without being apprehensive of the ultimate breaking out of trouble between the United States and Japan. Every careful student of international affairs must recognize dangerous possibilities in the present situation. If friction should break out and war should ensue, can any one believe that Canada would be able to keep out of the conflict?


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some hon. member asks "why not?" There is a definite possibility of aerial warfare. The United States owns Alaska and there is a considerable gap between the Alaskan panhandle and Seattle. Undoubtedly, planes going backward and forward would pass over our territory and I do not think it would be very long before our position would become extremely delicate. It is all very well for hon. members resident in the east to believe that any future trouble will be largely in- Europe, but they should not forget that Canada has a western outlook. The problems of the orient are of vital importance to us and we ought to know what our policies are with regard to them. We ought to know whether we are likely to follow the policy of Great Britain or the policy of the United States, which latter we did at the time Mr. Meighen threw his influence against the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese alliance. We ought to know the policy of the government on- such matters.
It may be said that questions of this kind should be left to the Department of External Affairs; I do not think they should. They have not been so left in Great Britain. I recognize that a great deal of the information which comes to us from Great Britain as well as some of the information from our embassies in Japan, Paris and Washington, must be considered as confidential, but some of it ought to be available to hon. members of this house. We should not be left in the dark as to the main lines of the government's foreign policy.
We all know the procedure of our select committees. In such committees an informal atmosphere prevails. The members do not sit in opposing ranks as we do here in th,e house. In the committee we sit around the room and the discussion is very informal in

Canada's Foreign Policy-Mr. Bennett
character. Further than that we can call witnesses. I would think that at least in the beginning, if this suggestion is adopted, we might have the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs come before the committee and tell us what he is free to tell. I am quite sure that he would be glad to give a great deal of valuable information, as he did at the time the resolution of the hon. member for Southeast Grey was under consideration. Further, it would seem to me a very reasonable proceeding that the delegates to the League of Nations and the International Labour Organizations should be present before that committee and make a report. After that, as we all know, these reports would be given publicity by the press, and these proceedings would form the basis for discussions throughout the entire country.
I am not suggesting that we in Canada will at one bound attain a fullfledged foreign policy. Our policy will approximate, I should judge, to that of the motherland, but we ought to know what the policy of the motherland is, and adopt a definite attitude toward that policy. Every intelligent citizen of Canada ought to be kept informed.
I am glad to support a resolution of this' kind, not only because it gives us the opportunity of a discussion of such questions early in the session before the final rush sets in, but also in the hope that the government will give serious consideration to what seems not an unreasonable suggestion, and one that might be of great practical value to this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a meeting where I was endeavouring to impress upon those present the importance of some of the matters to which the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Woodsworth) has spoken. I was endeavouring to point out that in this country we have a citizenship that begins with the municipality, and from there extends to the province. In the province we have our citizenship as Canadians, and then our citizenship as members of the British Empire. From that we have a world citizenship arising out of our relations with the League of Nations and our commitments under the Treaty of Versailles.
I did venture to point out the difficulties of any Canadian having a clear appreciation of the complexities, indeed almost insuperable, that have to be overcome in order that we may have a clear perspective of our world citizenship. I cannot but think that while it is highly desirable that we should not for a moment lessen our activities and our desire
to promote peace and the reign of law and the rule of reason, we must not by the observations we make here or elsewhere endeavour to induce the people to believe that we .are a nation with the power and the authority to assert our views in the degree expressed by the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat.
We occupy a position midway between the Occident and the orient, and our influence is of course great because of that fact. We are deeply interested in the eastern civilization because of trade and because of the fact that upon the Pacific there are thousands of miles of our coast line. We are interested, of course, in the European civilization and vitally interested in the policies that are pursued by Great Britain.
But I need hardly point out to this house what every member realizes, that the foreign policy of the British Empire is perhaps the most difficult thing to contemplate that man can think of. Why? Because you have autonomous communities in South Africa, in New Zealand1, in Australia, in Canada, and we have claimed and have been accorded rights equal so far as general principles are concerned to those possessed by the citizens of Great Britain. But we have neither the might of a navy nor the force of an army, and when we in the international field endeavour to express our views we are measured, unfortunately still in this day, by our ability to carry forward any undertaking to which we commit ourselves.
Those members of this house who have followed with care, and some have-some have not because of the very nature of the complex problems involved, and with the duties cast upon them from other angles they have not had the time to give to it-those who have given thought to the matter will realize that this country has steadily endeavoured to promote peace and disarmament. On ail occasions where the opportunity has offered the Canadian people have at once supported every measure, international or otherwise, that would insist upon developing an atmosphere of peace-the Kellogg-Briand pact, questions relating to the arbitration of justiciable disputes, the maintenance of our representation at the League of Nations with respect to the International Labour Office, attendance upon the meetings of the League of Nations-all these things that could be done by this young dominion to promote the cause of peace have been done.
With respect to disarmament, what is the position of this dominion? Will the hon. gentleman who has taken his seat suggest for a single moment that the views of Canada
*196	COMMONS
Canada's Foreign Policy-Mr. Bennett
with respect to disarmament have in the very nature of things been seriously considered abroad? What have we to disarm? Will any hon. member say? All we can do is to throw the weight of our influence and the weight of our assistance and votes towards every cause that looks towards bringing about disarmament. In the short time that I have been responsible for any foreign affairs, I have always expressed it in these words, as I did on the occasion of the visit to this country of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, that so long as nations have armaments, just so long will you continue to have the invitation to use them. 'Whether you like it or not, tanks, aircraft, torpedoes, submarines, all these forms of armament, if they are constructed, tend to develop the view that they should be used. There are those commentators upon the late war who believed that it was entirely attributable to the fact that a moment was reached when with all the developments that had taken place in the construction of arms, and with the equipment of troops, they could no longer be held in leash, and conflict was inevitable.
To the extent of our ability this country has thrown itself with all its force on the side of peace and disarmament. Whether it be the government that was lately in office or this administration, it matters not; for ever since rye have had a voice that voice has been raised for peace and for disarmament.
But now the question is raised in this chamber as to the lack of facilities for discussion. When the estimates are before this house discussion can be prolonged for days to obtain b.y question and answer any information that might be desired. So far as the production of papers is concerned, any hon. member who desires to do so can read the journal of the League of Nations. It must be within the memory of the house that within the last few weeks an appeal has been made to the Canadian people over the signatures of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mir. Woodsworth) and myself, asking for more study on the part of the people of the problems that are involved. We believe as a result some good has already been accomplished; local organizations, branches of the League of Nations, have been created in small communities for the purpose of systematic study, through the publications of the league and through the journal, its newspapers, of just what are the problems that have to be considered.
But I should like new to turn from that phase of the question to the terms of the 
resolution. I cannot accept it. No member of any administration charged with responsibility, which has a majority in the House of Commons, would accept that resolution. If I might say so, it is a very cleverly devised part of the campaign and program of my hon. friends who sit opposite and to the right. This afternoon it was the nationalization of insurance; to-morrow it may be the nationalization of the banks; to-night it is one step forward-not a responsible government any longer, but government by a committee of the house instructing the administration with respect to foreign policy. This is subtle, clever, indicating that new methods are to be adopted rather than the old, frontal attack methods that have heretofore prevailed. But the glove still covers the mailed fist.
Let us look at what representative institutions are. Is there an hon. member belonging, at any rate, to the Liberal party who does not realize that this resolution asks that the whole subject of the foreign policy of Canada be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations for study and report? That is not the way in which Canada has been governed and it is not the way in which it will be as long as we have representative institutions and responsible government. When the government departs from that policy which the house believes should be followed, a vote of censure secures its defeat. Thus England is governed; thus under a socialist administration England was governed. No committee hearing witnesses and discussions makes a report to the house as to what the government should or should not do; the government acts and upon its actions it stands or falls. The responsibility for its conduct lies with the administration and by its conduct it must stand or fall. A committee may be set up, indeed it may consider many phases of matters, but how could a government function if a committee instructed to study and report as to questions of foreign policy made a recommendation that a certain line of action should be followed without being cognizant of the facts that control and influence the action that must be taken?
Only last week I asked the Under Secretary to have prepared a white paper for circulation amongst the members of this house, containing a full and complete report of what had taken place at the disarmament conference in the way of suggestions, together with the final report, also together with the present recommendations made by the British government as to the settlement of the problems involved, and in addition, a copy of the speech of Sir

Canada's Foreign Policy-Mr. Bennett
John Simon, Foreign Secretary, in connection with the matter. I did that in order that the house might be informed before the estimates came up for consideration. But am I to be told that the government of this country, which after all has no army and no navy and is not concerned about the problem of disarmament as regards having anything to disarm, but is vitally interested in everything that affects the welfare of the world at large and that larger world citizenship which we have accepted-concerned as we are about that, am I to be told that the government is to be directed by a committee on foreign relations? If you will consider the number composing the committee, you will see that it is rather a large one. Are they to meet regularly in a room in thi3 building, to have brought before them papers and documents and to inform the government of the principles that must govern in connection with foreign policy? Foreign policy is something that changes from hour to hour, from day to day. Of course only the broad outlines of a great policy can affect the Dominion of Canada. Those broad outlines of Canadian policy are to maintain peace, to assist disarmament, to bring it about so far as our power is concerned, and, further, to lend our influence and the strength of our position by reason of our geographical situation and our numbers to offer measures that may be promoted within the British Commonwealth of Nations to secure those two ends which are fundamentally the principles upon which democracy lives, namely, the maintenance of peace and the elimination by the nations of the world of arms and equipment for war purposes.
Then there is the question of arbitration, the determination of justiciable disputes by arbitration and awards; all these matters are to be promoted. I remember when Earl Granville went to the Foreign Office, he was told by the Under Secretary: "There is not a cloud upon the sky; there never was a moment when the sky was clearer," but in four weeks the nations of Europe were locked in war. I wonder whether one realizes how difficult it is to maintain any principle of continuity with respect to our foreign relations and, on the other hand, to maintain that principle mentioned in the resolutions of 1926 and the statute of 1930, that is cooperation and association with the other nations of the British Empire for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the whole?
We certainly cannot accept this resolution; we cannot accept the responsibility that is involved in the passing of a motion such as this, but the fullest opportunity is always afforded when the estimates are before the house to make all inquiries within reason, and if the 74726-32
question is not against the public interest, it will be answered. With this proviso the fullest opportunity will be afforded to every hon. member to ask questions in connection with any matter that affects this country in respect to its relations to the rest of the world.
So far as ministers are concerned, we have only three offices abroad, one in Paris, one in Tokyo and one in Washington. On this continent we are concerned more with matters that arise from administration and trade than with matters of diplomacy as they are understood in the older countries. In Paris the position is much the same; for I do not disguise from any hon. member that our influence among the nations of Europe qua nation is measured by our guns and ships, but qua our power in conference, measured by the fact that we represent 10,500,000 people and that those people are on the northern half of the North American continent. In Tokyo we are constantly in communication with our office there. As regards difficulties of great delicacy between the great empires of Japan, China and Russia, we are kept informed every day of the problems that confront the statesmen of the old world, but who within sound of my voice suggests that the foreign policy of the Dominion of Canada with respect to Japan can affect the world position?
Now, there is such a thing as sweet reasonableness. There is such a thing as having a proper perspective. There is such a thing as being able to see a position without exaggeration, to understand that great as your country is, important as it is, great as is its influence, it is not exactly what you would call a policy-compelling influence; because we have neither of the factors that go to make it such, in a world that resorts to war for the arbitrament of difficulties. But we will endeavour, as I repeat, and I cannot repeat it too frequently, to use in every possible way the influence that comes to us by reason of our position and the strength of our position within the British Empire to uphold every effort that is made to promote peace, to advance the principle of peaceful settlement of difficulties in the world's court, and above all to secure, if it be within the wit and power of man, that disarmament which will cease to make the possession of arms an invitation to breach of the peace.
Therefore I hope that upon reconsideration the hon. member who moved this motion will realize that it is the negation of responsible government, the destruction of the very structure that has been built up through the efforts-the opposition would say their efforts, but through the efforts of Canadians of all parties, that government shall be responsible

*	COMMONS
Canada's Foreign Policy-Mr. Bennett
to the House of Commons; and that when its policies, its conduct of foreign or domestic affairs, bring a vote of censure or condenmna-tion by this chamber, it ceases to function. For that reason we cannot accept this resolution or adopt the principle which underlies it. As I say, when the estimates are before the house the most ample opportunity will be afforded to every member to discuss until he is weary of the discussion every phase of our foreign policy, and I shall endeavour to the extent of my ability to answer any questions that are suggested.


Michael Luchkovich: It was with no intention of pressing this resolution to a vote that I proposed it this evening. The Prime Minister a moment ago said we would have ample opportunity to discuss this matter when the estimates for external affairs are brought down in the house. For the past eight years I have noticed that the estimates for external affairs usually are brought down three, or four days before prorogation, therefore little or no opportunity is afforded any member to discuss a matter of such great weight as the foreign policy of Canada. Now I have always been considered by my friends, and I believe by most hon. members in this house, as a pretty good sort of fellow. No one ever convicted me of being subtle until the Prime Minister of Canada registered that conviction to-night. I wish I did have the subtlety to get out of the position the Prime Minister has placed me in, but, being only a good fellow and having no subtlety, I am going to say no more on this subject. My only purpose in raising the question was to learn something about the foreign policy of Canada, and I thought this was one method of approaching that all-important matter.
We have had many delegates to various conferences concerning Europe and the far east, but none of them has ever reported to the House of Commons. The suggestion has been made that if we want to know something about the foreign policy of Canada we should read the periodicals and the proceedings of the League of Nations and other publications. Well, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned I cannot find time to read all those periodicals; and if we were to try to arrive at some knowledge of the foreign policy of Canada by reading these numerous and very voluminous publications, hon. members will agree with me that the attempt to arrive at such knowledge would drive every one of us crazy. Therefore I thought that if we could get a short resume from the delegates

who have attended these various conferences, we would all be wiser as to the situation in which Canada now finds herself in relation to other countries. All I wanted was to have the government unscramble the very much scrambled situation in which Canadian foreign policy now finds itself. We have had it unscrambled to a certain extent this evening, but the process could be carried much further if the matter were considered in a committee and discussed at some length by the various delegates whom we send to these several conferences.
I do not intend to press the resolution, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With the consent of the house the resolution will be withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the motion being called:
Miss MACPHAIL:: That, in the opinion of this house, a special committee should be set up to investigate the causes of crime and to determine whether the penitentiaries of Canada are doing all that could be done towards protecting society by the reforming of the criminal.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the intention of the hon. member to proceed with the resolution?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stand.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the resolution is called again and stands it will be dropped from the order paper.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Speaker, a special
arrangement has been made at the request of the mover of this resolution, who on account of ill health is not prepared to proceed with it. Your Honour noted the arrangement at the time, I think.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My understanding was
that in order to keep the resolution alive the debate would be commenced and adjourned; then the motion would hold a place on the order paper. If with the unanimous consent of the house the resolution is allowed to stand and not leave the order paper, there is no objection on the part of the Speaker. With that understanding the resolution stands.
Motion stands.

Federal Health-Mr. Spencer



FEDERAL HEALTH POLICY


[Stage Direction]
Mr. HENRY E. SPENCER (Battle River) moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, the federal government should adopt a definite health policy which could be carried out in cooperation with the provincial governments, and with this end in view, the subject should be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations for consideration and report.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the wording of this resolution, is such that the Prime' Minster (Mr. Bennett) will not think for a moment that it is put forward with the one idea of undermining the confidence of the country in the government. I put it forward with the strong hope that I shall get a great deal of help not only from this corner of the house but also from the official opposition and from government supporters themselves. I hope it is worth considering carefully and that ultimately it will be accepted.
I think every hon. member in this house recognizes the great importance of public health. The house must also recognize that in these days of stress we are bound to have a great deal more sickness than in good times, because people are much poorer and have not the means with which to call in the necessary medical assistance, and many of them put off calling for aid until it is too late. In 1930 I had the opportunity of introducing a resolution along somewhat similar lines, dealing with full-time health units. The resolution read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration advisability of making grants to the provinces equal to one-third the cost of establishing, and to cover permanently such full-time health units as may be organized.
That resolution was accepted by the government of the day, but within twelve months the government changed and nothing was done. I introduced another resolution along these lines in 1931, after the new government came into power, and they were good enough to accept the resolution then proposed, but owing to the fact that the financial crisis was upon us nothing was done. Therefore I come forward to-day with another request in the hope that some definite policy may be formed in regard to public health in cooperation between the federal government and the provincial governments.
Under the British North America Act I understand nothing is definitely said with regard to the care of health, and though it 74726-32J
is necessary for the federal Department of Health to carry on certain work, most of the work is thrown on the shoulders of the provinces. So far as I know every province has some sort of policy and some sort of department looking after health, but much more can be and should be done in cooperation by the federal and provincial governments. I have five notations under my hand outlining subjects which I think are distinctly a federal responsibility, since each one has a national aspect. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mac-laren) has come closer so that he can hear what I am about to say. The five points which have a national aspect are first, tuberculosis; second, cancer; third, the prevention and control of insanity; fourth, venereal disease and fifth, child and maternal welfare.
Surely no province can be expected to deal with these matters, which should be handled by the federal government in cooperation with the provinces. We all recognize that the care of health is a serious matter not only for the individual but for the state as well. We have only to go back to the tame of the war to realize the enormous cost of ill health to the nation. The other day I looked up some figures with regard to the number of men who volunteered following the outbreak of war, and I found that of a total of 465,984 some 45,000 were medioally unfit. Of the remainder some 100,000 were sent overseas but, under the stress of training, were found to be physically unfit for service. All this cost the country a huge amount of money. I recall that the late Sir Arthur Currie, speaking in Montreal, laid emphasis upon the desirability of greater care being taken with regard to the health of our people. Later in the war, when conscription was brought in, I found that of 264,355 persons called only 83,355 were accepted; in other words 68 per cent were rejected, so that one can readily see the enormous expense to the country which resulted. If we had some definite policy of cooperation between the federal and provincial governments by means of which the health of our people could be kept at a much higher level than is the case to-day, such things would be impassible.
The other day some figures were presented to me by the Canadian Council on Child Welfare. We must remember that up to a year or so agio a large amount of money was being spent every year to bring people into this country, but when all is said and done the children most worth rearing are the children
Federal Health-Mr. Spencer
[Stage Direction]
born in this country. Therefore I should like to present some figures in that regard. I find that of 235,666 children born in Canada in 1932 no lees than 7,284 were still-born; 17,263 died before their first birthday; 21,874 died before their fifth birthday and 1,181 mothers died in childbirth. It is said that most of these deaths were preventable. One cannot look at these figures without realizing the great loss which might be obviated.
It is recognized that when sickness descends upon a household it affects the people in two ways. There is the expense of the medical, hospital and nursing attention, and there is also the fact that as soon as the bread winner is taken ill his wages usually stop. It is estimated by some health organizations in this country that in medical expenses and time lost Canada loses some $300,000,000 yearly, yet the total amount of money being spent in this country by government agencies in regard to the health of our people is only about $6,000,000.
Now I should like to point out that there are three diseases from which death may be prevented with proper care. There are diphtheria, typhoid fever and tuberculosis. Yet every year we lose about 11,000 people as a result of each of the first two diseases and about 8,000 as a result of tuberculosis. We find on consulting statistics that some people pay fully for medical attention, some pay in part and many cannot pay at all. The figures I have before me show that 49 per cent of the people who are sick pay in full, 20 per cent pay in part and 31 per cent pay nothing. There may be an odd one or two in the 31 per cent who intentionally do not pay anything, but I do not believe the average man or woman would attempt to avoid paying their bills for sickness if they could possibly meet them. As good health is something which we should strive to have among our people and as sickness does not stop at one's door, or even at provincial boundaries, it is essential in the interest of communities that we should take care of those who are sick, and we should further see to it that to the greatest possible extent preventive measures against sickness are taken.
We have an army of trained men and women with knowledge of health measures. It is unfortunately true that many of them are not fully engaged because the demand for their services, on account of expenses, is not made. There is the further fact, however, that many of them, although attending patients cannot obtain payment for their services and, for that reason, are working under a great handicap. I have but to draw attention to a situation ^Mr. Spencer.]
which arose only a few weeks ago in Winnipeg. A few days ago in this House of Commons we u'ere told that a doctors' strike had occurred in that city. That stand was taken by the doctors, not because they wanted to, but as a measure of self-defence. Apparently a condition has arisen in Winnipeg whereby the doctors cannot be sure of obtaining for their services enough to give them a decent living, and they want to force the responsibility upon some one so that their bills may be paid. With that in mind they have signed the following pledge:
I undertake to refuse free medical service in the office, hospital or home to any individual in receipt of relief, unless an emergency exists. An emergency is one in which life is in imminent danger and for which immediate action is required. This is to take effect on and after the fifteenth day of February, 1934, unless the civic and/or municipal authorities concerned have made satisfactory arrangements with our committee.
I believe that is probably one of the most serious situations facing any city in Canada, and is a situation with which not only cities but country districts will be confronted if some plan is not forthcoming and some arrangement is not made between governing powers on one hand and the people on the other. Something is being done, but in too small a way.
Mr. ArRTHURS: In what regard?
Henry Elvins Spencer: I will come to that. I know full well that the federal government does not undertake to take care of the full health program, and for that reason provision for only a limited amount of money for health purposes is placed in the estimates. Looking at the estimates for the year 1928 I found that while we were spending only 8900,000 for health we made provision for the expenditure of $1,800,000 on penitentiaries. In the estimates presented this session we are spending $2,833,000 on penitentiaries and, so far as I can ascertain we are spending only $830,000 on health.
Dealing with another aspect of the situation, may I remind hon. members that a few years ago in our twenty-three universities 9,525 students were enrolled, while at the same time in our fifty-two mental asylums we housed no less than 25,259 inmates. This, in itself is a serious situation and one which should be given very serious consideration. We recognize to-day that generally speaking city people are healthier than people in the country. That is exactly the reverse of the situation that obtained a few years ago, and it has been brought about because in the cities there

Federal Health-Mr. Spencer
has been a certain amount of definite health organization. For that reason the health of the city people has been kept in a better state. 'Country people, who are without that care, are suffering a higher death rate and a higher rate of sickness. Quite properly the federal government takes care to keep out of the country all people suffering from any serious illness. Surely, if they recognize their responsibility to keep sickness out of the country they must recognize a responsibility to keep in good health those people inside our borders.
Undoubtedly excellent work has been done in connection with full-time health units. Particularly is that so in the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta. In order that the house may have some idea of the work done in these units I should like to give the figures showing the death rate in three units of the province of Quebec, and indicating how, owing to the organization for the care of health, deaths have been cut down:
Deaths per thousand 1926
Unit No.	1	
46Unit No.	2	
68Unit No.	3	
26
Deaths per thousand 1928 19 46 14
These figures give one great hope as to what can be done and, of course, they indicate only a beginning. Furthermore, with the full-time health units taking advantage of endowments from the Rockfeller Foundation, which are given only for three years, it is essential, if they cannot afford to carry on without that help, that the federal government step in and give them aid. I am pleased to quote a statement of the present Prime Minister made in 1931, when I introduced my resolution favouring full-time health units in Canada and made the request for help from the federal government. On that occasion he said:
Touching the necessity for the establishment of health units nothing need be said. I think the case is complete and almost before it is stated.
I have always recognized that for many years the present Prime Minister has taken a great interest in the care of health. Therefore I hope that he will give this resolution his very very sympathetic support.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not realize that under present financial conditions nothing can come of referring a resolution of this sort to a committee?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I appreciate that at the moment, with financial conditions as they are, nothing can be done, but we hope that trade is on the upward trend and that success is somewhere around the corner. If that is so- and we most sincerely hope it is-we might fairly give consideration to this matter now, even if we cannot do anything for twelve or eighteen months.
I should like to quote from the comments of a well known public woman who, speaking at a health meeting, said:
Curious, is it not, that we cull our flocks and herds, allowing only the finest and most physically perfect to breed and yet when it comes to the human race, we allow the mating of the most diseased and imperfect, both mentally and physically.
She goes on to say:
How long will sentiment outweigh good sense in dealing with this problem of the propagation of the race?
Some one asked me a moment ago what progress had been made in certain parts of Canada. A start has been made in Saskatchewan with municipal doctors, while Alberta has started with municipal hospitals. We have government clinics here and there which are giving some help, while examinations at schools are found to be very valuable. However, with all of this, we are merely scratching the surface. There should be some plan of cooperation between the federal and provincial governments in connection with preventive medicine. When all is said and done, too much work is done in simply making people well. If we exercised preventive medicine we would save the people a lot of sickness and bring about a higher standard of health. We would be a healthier, happier and richer nation.
Compulsory health insurance was started in Germany as far back as 1883, in Bismarck's time. Canada is supposed to be fairly well up to the front in social development, but in this respect we are far behind Germany which started this thing fifty-one years ago. Austria, Norway and other countries followed. Great Britain has a volunteer scheme, as have Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, France, Spain, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. All of these countries are ahead of Canada as far as the care of health is concerned.
A medical service should provide scientific diagnosis and treatment if needed; it should provide adequate pay for doctors and nurses; it should encourage health education, and it should correlate the work of all health agencies. If this were done the doctor would

Federal Health-Mr. Spencer
be assured an adequate income. His standard of living would be raised and he would have access to the proper equipment. It would provide regular examination for the patient, which he does not have at the present time. It would provide hospitalization, nursing and medical care irrespective of financial position. We must recognize that we cannot have anyone suffering sickness just because he has not the wherewithal. I admit that considerable free work is done, but there are many people who will not call in medical aid until the last moment, until very often it is too late, when they feel they cannot afford to pay. A provincial scheme is being put forward during the present session of the Alberta legislature to cover the whole province, and I have hopes that it will be accepted. However, no province, particularly a western one, can carry a scheme like this by itself.
In conclusion, I desire to make four suggestions. The first is that public health should be put on a business basis. The second is that the federal and provincial governments should increase expenditures for health as quickly as possible. The third is that the medical profession should be asked to cooperate, and I am sure that a great number of doctors, particularly those in the rural districts, will be only too willing to do so. The fourth is that the education of the public in health matters should be pressed. With these suggestions, I express the hope that the house will accept this resolution.


Murray MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Spencer), and I should like to make a few observations with reference to what he has said.
Taking a broad view of public health, both in the care of the sick and in the matter of sanitation, it is true that a large part rests with the provincial governments, but at the same time this is an incomplete statement of the case. I should like to indicate to the house just w'here the federal government and its Department of National Health enters in an important way into the measures that lead to the improved health of the people of this country. I would direct the attention of the house to an organization known as the Dominion Council of Health. This organiza-Jon meets in Ottawa twice yearly under arrangements made by the federal government. It is composed of fifteen members which include a health officer from each province, representatives of agriculture and women's organizations, as well as a specialist in public health. I direct the attention of the hon.

member who moved this resolution to the existence of this organization. It represents an attempt on the part of the government to nationalize in a manner the care of the sick and to improve sanitation. It brings together representatives from all the provinces and I think provides an example of cooperation. The fundamental principle in the council is cooperation among the provinces and I believe it meets to a considerable extent one of the matters referred to by the hon. member. In addition to cooperation, it strives to bring about standardization of methods and the adoption of uniform systems of reporting vital statistics, and deals with other important matters. I place this before the house as one effort which has been made by the federal health department to bring about cooperation among the provinces and to add to the efficiency of sanitation.
In discussing public health and its importance I think it is well that we should not fail to recognize the great advances that are now taking place in Canada. Whether you approve of the system or not, the fact is that in recent years there has been a marked advance in sanitation and in the care of the sick. It is true that a large part of that is done under the provinces, but the fact remains that the advances are very marked and very striking. Health units, for instance, have been mentioned. This is an organization of not many years standing, and was especially adopted for the benefit of those living in the country, far from the ordinary medical and nursing facilities. It is an organization that can be highly commended. It is there and it is growing.
I have referred to the council of health as being one method of reaching out through the country and advancing the care of the sick. I should like to mention some others. What is the federal department of health doing to-day in reference to drugs, proprietary and patent medicines, and foods? The work that is going on is very important indeed. The department which I have the honour of administering guards against exaggerated and false claims in regard to drugs that are on sale to the public. That comes under the federal department of health, and I trust that my hon. friend will include it among the important federal activities which are carried on. Proprietary and patent medicines and other medicines of that character must fulfil certain requirements. They must state on their labels the constituent or potent drugs which enter into their composition. It ensures that they do not exceed the proper dosage. It also prevents undue claims being made

Federal Health-Mr. MacLaren
to the public. It protects the public who are so prone to depend on something that holds out to them great hope-cures for tuberculosis, cures for cancer, and so forth. All that work is being quietly but effectively done under the federal department of health to safeguard the people of Canada.
I venture to think that many hon. members may not be conversant with the fact of the connection between radio and the Department of National Health. It has been arranged, and is being carried out satisfactorily, that all radio broadcasting on the question of health and on cures and drugs must first be submitted to the department 6f health to be passed upon before it is broadcast. That has been found to be practical and successful. It is the means of preventing exaggerated advertisements being broadcast over the radio.
My hon. friend also referred to five diseases or five branches of disease in regard to which he thought the federal government should cooperate with the provinces to a greater extent than at present. Let me mention them.
Tuberculosis. Well, the government has for many years assisted in supporting the national organization for the prevention of tuberculosis -not spending an enormous sum, it is true, but still it has supported and is represented on that organization. Every endeavour has been made by the department to increase the influence of the organization in dealing with tuberculosis.
Then there is cancer. The federal government is not taking any special action in regard to cancer, but we know that during the last few years in almost every province extensive expenditures have been made for the purchase of radium. We are aware that the province of Ontario especially has developed cancer clinics, equipped with radium, where the work is going on in a very important way. It seems to me that the important thing is to have the matter dealt with properly and efficiently, even if it is not done under the federal department, and that work is being done efficiently.
As regards venereal disease, one must not forget that the federal government, because of its desire to help on that movement, made substantial grants for a number of years for dealing with venereal disease. A grant of over 8100,000 a year was made for a number of years to assist that movement and put it on its feet.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is the government still
making the grants?


Murray MacLaren: No. The understanding at the outset was that the federal government would make a contribution, and it was a very substantial one, for a number of years, with the object of putting the matter in operation and supporting the organization.
In reference to child welfare, the department of health keeps in close touch with the child welfare association. One of its aims is to further the care of maternity cases, of mothers, infants and children, and this cooperation has advanced in the last year so that there is now a special connection between the Department of National Health and the child welfare organization. That is something which I believe will lead to increased efficiency, and hon. gentlemen will have the opportunity of hearing more about it when the estimates are under consideration.
Quarantine and immigration come under the jurisdiction of the federal department of health, in order that the government may protect the health of Canadians by preventing the admission of serious infectious dise'ases. The officers of that department, so far as immigration is concerned, are responsible for seeing to it that only those who are healthy and free from disease are admitted to this country. I trust I have given some examples of the really important work carried on by the department and affecting the whole of Canada.
I am afraid that the government will not be able to support the resolution, which is similar to the previous one asking that the matter be referred to a committee for report. The government is responsible for the efficient and satisfactory administration of the department of health. I do not know the views of the mover of the resolution, but it seems to me to be desirable in a matter of this land that the motion should not be pressed to a vote. I trust he will view the matter in that way. In any case, however, the government will not be able to accept the motion.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Before the minister takes his seat, if he cannot give me some more hope than be has so far as regards the principle of the resolution, I would rather press it to a vote. The minister has certainly thrown cold water upon the whole question of cooperation in the matter of health. If he will give me any hope at all, I shall not press the matter to a vote, -but I certainly cannot sit still under the fast statement of the minister.


Murray MacLaren: I do not understand my hon. friend's suggestion that I am throwing cold water upon the question of cooperation

Federal Health-Mr. Willis
between the provinces and the dominion, as almost everything I have said has been supporting it. I have given him many examples of the dominion government and in particular the department of health doing all it can to promote cooperation among the provinces. There is, so far as we Can carry it out, a close connection between the provinces and the federal deaprtment of health. For example, there may come to the federal department information of an important character concerning, perhaps, some infectious disease, and that information is conveyed to the health officers of the different provinces. There is cooperation in that respect. There is an attitude of mutual helpfulness between the provinces and the federal department; there is a good understanding, and I wish to convey to the hon. member that I am not throwing cold water, as he says, on the question of cooperation. I am indicating that there is a cordial recognition of the importance of the whole question, and an attitude of increasing, so far as possible, active cooperation between the various provinces and the dominion.
Mr. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Souris): Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in regard to the resolution now before the house, because I am deeply interested in any policy which would give better health to the general public. The resolution before us, in my opinion, would involve a strengthening of the duplication of services which now exists as between the federal and provincial governments, and for that reason I am opposed to it. In the province of Manitoba from which I come we have a department of public works, even as we have here; a department of labour even as wrn have a federal department of labour; a railway commissioner even as we have a minister of railways at Ottawa; a minister of health even as we have the Minister of Health (Mr. MacLaren) who has just spoken; a department and a minister of agriculture just as we have in the federal government here; an attorney general just as we have a solicitor general here; a provincial treasurer as compared with the minister of finance and also a minister of mines just as we have a minister of mines at Ottawa. In my opinion the whole question of the matters to be handled by the federal as opposed to the provincial government should first be redefined in. the light of present day circumstances, rather than that we should do anything to increase the duplication of such services. I do not agree with nor am I in favour of an amalgamation of the western provinces to bring this about. I hasten to make this remark due to the fact that the press in Mont-
real recently said that I had made such a statement. Rather do I think we should commence now to define those matters over which the federal government has sole jurisdiction and responsibility as against those over which the provincial government has sole jurisdiction and responsibility.
Let us consider for a moment the question of public works. Recently as a relief measure we constructed public works partly through the municipalities, partly through the provincial government and partly through the federal administration. If the poor voter, the forgotten man on the street, desired to malqe any complaint in. regard to public works he had nowhere to go. He might try, if he would, to complain to the municipal council; he was passed on from the municipal council to the provincial government, from the provincial government to the federal government, and then, no doubt, the federal government passed him back to the municipal council again. This is on account of the fact that the individual responsibility of these bodies in connection with public works and other matters is not sufficiently defined. This fact is more clearly revealed in the operations of the department of labour whereby we now administer relief. Again the poor forgotten man has nowhere to go; he does not know where the responsibility rests. Here also we require a redefinition of where that responsibility may lie, because if you do not say definitely where it lies, you put a premium upon lying and much of it is done.


William Irvine: May I ask what is going to become of this forgotten man while my hon. friend is finding out where the responsibility lies?


Errick French Willis: Perhaps in view of the fact that the hon. member is creating a new party he will need some of these forgotten men in it.


William Irvine: If we have them all we will have the biggest party.


Errick French Willis: Then we come to the question of railways. I am completely at a loss to know what the railway commissioner of the province of Manitoba does. We have such a commissioner and no doubt he has some work to do. We also have a minister of railways in Ottawa and a department of railways in Ottawa, and why we should have the two services I am at a loss to know.
A duplication which perhaps will come still more closely to the attention of hon. members is that in connection with agriculture. We have experimental farms and experimental stations and experimental plots, some carried

Federal Health-Mr. Mitchell
on by the provincial governments, some carried on by the federal government; and also so far as I am able to see from close observation of those within my own constituency there is complete lack of cooperation between the two administrations. It seems to me that the experimental farms of this country either should be run by the federal government, in order to coordinate these services, or else should be run solely by the provincial governments with a view to provincial requirements. At the present time we have scattered over the country experimental farms, experimental stations and other experiments which are costing the people a great deal of money and which if coordinated would be of some use to the public.
Again we have the attorneys general of the provinces and we have the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice at Ottawa. The fact that companies can be organized within provincial jurisdictions gives opportunity for those who desire to set up companies to sell nothing to someone for something. By this lack of cooperation, this lack of definition, avenues are opened to the man who desires to sell what he should not be permitted to sell, and to those who are trying to undermine the better kind of business in this country.
Then, as to the departments of mines, we have a minister of mines at Ottawa. I am not very well versed in what the provincial minister of mines does in the province from which I come; no doubt in most provinces they place provincial restrictions on a national mining policy, rather than seek to cooperate with the federal department.
The main point which I desire to make is that the present resolution is an attempt to increase the duplication of services to pay for which the taxpayers of this country are carrying a heavy burden. Whether we need at this time a health policy or not, I say the first step for the hon. member to take is to redefine the jurisdiction of governments in this country as between the dominion and the provinces. Having done so he can then pursue his measure, placing responsibility where it belongs. Therefore I point out again the very vicious policy that prevails in this country in respect of duplication of services as between federal and provincial governments, and say that I am against the motion, not that I do not desire better health conditions in this country, but rather that I think the wrong course is being taken to that end. I think first we should redefine those matters which are provincial and those which are federal, in order to relieve the forgotten man, the taxpayer of this country.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put briefly before the house the point of view of the industrial worker in connection with health services. The statement was made this evening that the health conditions in the farming communities are much below those in industrial communities. No figures were quoted, and I am inclined to disagree with that conclusion. I think the health services in this dominion, particularly from the point of view of the medical men, stand in the same relationship to the nation as the schools did a century ago, a condition of, might I say, anarchy. A century ago the boys and girls of this country got a more or less indifferent education, owing to the lack of organization, the lack of interest on the part of the state in educational facilities for the average boy and girl of working class people of that time. So in the development of our modern civilization, and largely through the efforts of those of progressive viewpoint, the opinion was eventually crystallized into action that every boy and every girl in the country should, in the interests of the state and in the interests of industry and commerce, receive an education. The development of our educational institutions has been one of the driving forces of our civilization. I think it fair to say that to-day the medical profession stands in the same relation to the country and its services as education did many years ago. It is a tragedy that the state should spend the enormous sums it does on the education of our young physicians, and that on the completion of that education they should have to sit down and wait ten or fifteen years before they get anything that approximates a livelihood. Particularly is this true in view of the fact that it is not because of any lack of desire and need on the part of many people for expert medical advice and attention, but because of their lack of ability to meet the financial obligations that would confront them should they seek that advice. I am not unmindful of the enormous contribution that the medical profession has made to the people of this dominion, but frankly I believe that policy is absolutely unsound. We have long since passed the stage when physicians and surgeons should be expected to make that contribution to our hospitals and to the people in general without thought of reward. They are the only section of the professional classes who do so; no one ever heard of the lawyers doing it, or the teachers, or, might I say, even the preachers. Eventually we shall have to deal with the problem in conformity, of course, with the particular conditions existing in this dominion, as they did in Great R'-'t-ain when
Federal Health-Mr. Mitchell

they instituted their national health and insurance system. I believe that is one of the great social questions that will have to be met by this dominion. It is one of the predominant questions confronting our people- the provision of health services organized on a sound basis and administered by the state. You had in Great Britain at the inception of this form of legislation the same condition that you have in this dominion to-day, that is, active organized opposition of the medical fraternity within the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. gentleman mind if I pointed out further that the provinces and the dominion each exercise jurisdiction? That is the difference between Great Britain and Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am well aware of that fact, and many times in this house I have expressed the opinion that in the very near future amendments will have to be made to the British North America Act to permit the government of this country to meet the problems of this industrial age in conformity with the very necessary social measures that we think should be in operation here.
If I may digress for a moment, I might point out to the Prime Minister that I had some experience in Europe this summer with regard to developments in different countries. In some countries one sees the development of dictatorships while others, of course, have remained with democracy. I believe the greatest contribution made in Europe in the last generation has been made by the British people in their approach to the question of social insurances. In the last generation they have practically redistributed the wealth of Great Britain; they have had a revolution in regard to the distribution of wealth without the loss of a single life or the shedding of a drop of blood. Frankly I believe that is a far better way to approach these problems than the way in which they have been approached in other countries.
To get back to my point, however, I believe that in this dominion we will have to meet the points raised by the Prime Minister. Unquestionably the question of jurisdiction arises in regard to all these social services, including unemployment insurance and national health insurance, but if, in order to organize properly on a national basis, it is necessary to amend the British North America Act, I think that should be done as soon as possible. But we have a right to know whence the opposition
fMr. Mitchell.]
comes with regard to such an amendment to the British North America Act, whether from the federal government or from the provincial governments, in order that we can bring into being the forces of public opinion-those forces that make a democracy and which are the very basis of its life-that are necessary in order to crystallize opinion in the various provinces with regard to such an amendment. I believ e this would be in the interests of the medical profession as well, and I speak with some knowledge of their sacrifices. I believe it would be also in the interests of the grea,t mass of the people in this country; the institution of a sound national health insurance scheme would be a great advance over the present condition which exists within the medical profession and would go some distance towards solving the problems of the profession with regard to the treatment of ill health and sickness in this dominion.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I appreciate what the
Minister of Health (Mr. MacLaren) has had to say with regard to the dominion council of health. I knew this body existed, but however good its intentions may be it cannot do very much in the way of spending money without the sanction of this house. The House of Commons is supreme; that is why we biing up these resolutions. I am offering this resolution to-night in order to secure the opinion of the house, because if the house goes on record as supporting a resolution of this kind it makes it possible for the dominion council of health, in its wisdom, to recommend what might be done to improve conditions.
For the life of me I cannot see why the minister should still object to the resolution going to the committee as proposed. I understood that last year it was agreed among certain members in different quarters of the house who were interested in health matters that the proper committee to consider health questions would be the committee on industrial and international relations. The government of the day have a majority on all the committees, and they are far better places to discuss these questions than in the house. The government have their own chairmen and have majorities on all committees. We could do excellent work if we were allowed to discuss these health matters in committee and bring in a report.
After I said I really did not appreciate his stand in regard to the resolution in the first instance the minister did go a little further.

Federal Health-Mr. Spencer
I understand now that he is in sympathy with the principle of the resolution, and that it has his good wishes.


Murray MacLaren: I did not indicate that I was in sympathy with it at all; in fact I said that I was opposed to it. I said I was in sympathy with the idea of cooperation.


Henry Elvins Spencer: With the principle of the resolution.


Murray MacLaren: Not at all. This resolution proposes that a committee deal with the matter of policy. That was one reason why I objected to it; I do not think a committee should form a definite health policy for the government. Let me make it clear that I agree as to cooperation; that is our duty. I also agree that the work should be increased and that the work carried on throughout the country, whether by the provinces or by the federal government, should receive our approval. But I am opposing this resolution which seeks to establish a definite health policy.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I cannot see why the
minister objects, but I am not going to press my point. Surely any government should have a definite policy with regard to these matters; I had hoped that the minister had a definite policy, in cooperation with the provinces. If he has not such a policy ^ I hope he will soon get one; if he has a definite policy then I think it is up to the minister to declare it to this house. The minister mentioned in detail certain definite work done by the federal department. I should say that probably the federal department would not give up some of that work, that there are some angles of public health in which they claim a prior right, such as quarantine, immigration, and all that sort of thing. That indicates the difficult position in which we are placed with regard to this particular subject.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis), who criticized the overlapping as between the dominion and the provinces, but I think the hon. gentleman was wrong with regard to the question of health. I believe it might be much easier to put some of these other matters under the definite jurisdiction of either the federal government or the provinces, but the question of health is entirely different. There are certain matters which I am sure the federal government would not allow to get into the hands of the provinces at all. I would have no objection if the federal government wanted to take over the whole question, but they would not do that either. Therefore the provinces are forced to set up their health
departments, and that being so it is imperative that cooperation should be pushed for all it is worth as between the federal and provincial government.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, this resolution was introduced; I had hoped to get a definite expression of opinion from the house which would strengthen the hands of the minister in bringing forward some plan which would let us know where we were going. We do know where we are going with regard to education, a matter which was brought up this evening. We have a definite plan in respect to the question of education, but we have only to go through the country to see the extraordinary situation existing in these times of crisis so far as sickness is concerned. We learn that the doctors in Winnipeg have gone on strike because they cannot earn a living. I am sure they do not strike because they do not want to give people necessary medical attention, but simply because the people are poor and cannot afford to pay their fees. Something has to be done. I believe on two or three occasions one of the hon. members from Winnipeg has brought this very important matter to the attention of the house. What are the doctors in Winnipeg going to do? They say they will not accept a case, unless it be one of emergency. When does an emergency occur? Hon. members may be familiar with the old story about the man who said he could feed his horse on nothing. He did very well until he got down to one straw a day, and then the horse died. That is the position we are likely to be in. When we hear the doctors say they will not attend except in a case of emergency. When that emergency arises many of the patients will have reached a point where help will be of no use.
As the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) said, we are facing a problem which could be compared with the educational problem of a generation ago. I believe it is about time the public realized that it is much better to pay a small insurance fee, through taxation, so that in the case of sickness a demand for proper services could be made. When people are well they can afford to pay a small amount of money for such a purpose, but when they are sick they may not be able to pay heavy fees for medical attention.
I must say I was quite disappointed that the minister did not bring forward a more definite plan. Of those who volunteered for war services we must remember the large number who were found to be unfit for military service. Undoubtedly those men thought they were fit, but upon examination found it was
50S
Federal Health-Mr. Spencer

discovered that they had something the matter with them. From the national point of view alone it seems to me that this matter of health is one which we cannot afford to overlook. I know there has been an effort to cut down grants for health measures, such as those relating to venereal disease and so on. I believe that by such action we are simply making ourselves poorer. The time has come when we should put first things first; when all is said and done the human being should be our first consideration. We should definitely state whether or not we are going to try to make this nation healthy, and whether we want to Put it into category A, B, C or D. Then, having made our plans, we should find some way of financing them. Surely we have not yet tapped all the sources. The hon. member for East Hamilton has said that in Great Britain a tremendous amount has been done with regard to the care of health, certain social legislation has worked wonders in improving the health of the people.
It seems to me that too many people are saying: "Oh, matters relating to money, or the ways of collecting it, are far more important than the care of the health of our people." I believe the time has come when we should change that attitude, decide first of all that we are going to have a happy, contented and healthy people, and then set about to put them in that condition. There may be a good deal in the argument of the hon. member for Souris as to the overlapping of federal and provincial departments. No civil servant wants to give up his particular end of the work. At the same time I believe he was quite wrong in his criticism of the overlapping of health measures. We must realize that we cannot give the whole work to the provinces, because in so doing we should be interfering with the care of immigrants in quarantine, and like matters. At the same time the federal government will not take over the whole responsibility for the health of the people, and it may be that they should not. As some of the work has to be done at one point, such as at the coast, .and other work elsewhere, it becomes a matter of cooperation.
I repeat, I regret very much that the Minister of National Health did not take a more constructive attitude. We were handicapped during the regime of the last government with an attitude similar to that taken by the present minister. Had I not seen the minister speaking this evening, I would have said it was the one who held office five years ago.


Murray MacLaren: What about great minds?


Henry Elvins Spencer: Yes, great minds think
alike. At the same time I feel that the public

are demanding something more in the matter of public health. As I said before-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must call the hon. mem-bei s attention to the fact that it is now eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 13, 1934