1935-01-25

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to provide that military service in South Africa may be counted for the purposes of pension, and to make further provisions in respect to the application of penalties and to contributions to the dependents' pension fund.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :: Can the Minister of Pensions tell us, as far as he knows now, whether it is the intention of the government to introduce amendments to the Pension Act in addition to those indicated in the bill now before the house?


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: I cannot answer that.



DOUKHOBOR PRISONERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Justice. What action is the government taking in regard to the Doukhobor prisoners being released or about to be released from Piers island who, having lost their homes and place in their own community-


Mr. McINTOSH:: And votes too.


Thomas Reid: -have now no place of abode?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: My hon. friend gave me notice yesterday that he would ask this question and I have endeavoured to obtain the information. Originally at Piers island there were 575 Doukhobor prisoners, males 295, females 280. On the first day of January this year the present population of the island was, males 181, females 190, or a total of 371, so that 204 have already been released. I might mention 
that under the Penitentiary Act no prisoner can be released between the first of September and the first of April without his consent. Some of them will not give consent even when ticket of leave is offered. Married men among the prisoners object to leaving until their wives are released, and vice versa. The sentences of these prisoners will expire by service of time about the first of July next. It is hoped that by that date we shall be in a position to close the prisons on Piers island. The law provides that on the release of a prisoner he shall receive a ticket back to the point at which he was convicted, and also the sum of $10 in cash. When each prisoner is released from the penitentiary the $10 and the transportation are paid to him. After that, there is no further responsibility upon the part of the dominion government. We do not know where these men intend to go or where they intend to settle. It is true that on one or two occasions the Attorney General of British Columbia has had conferences with members of the Department of Justice staff and various suggestions have been made in regard to the future of these people, but the attorney general has never informed us of any definite plan he has in regard to them and no agreement of any kind has been reached in Wspect of it. The hope is now that having served their prison terms they may not be in future guilty of the offences of which they were formerly guilty and for which they have served their terms.



OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES

Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: May I call the attention of the house to a change in Hansard and then ask the responsible minister, who I presume would bo the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), a question based on that? At the back of unrevised Hansard No. 5 of Wednesday last there appeared two notices, one in English and one in French. On the back of Hansard No. 6, the report of yesterday's proceedings, those notices do not appear. On the front of to-day's Hansard I find the name of Mr. George Simpson as editor, but there is nothing to show that there is a French editor; the name of Mr. Marcel Gabard, editor of French debates, does not appear. I would ask the minister whether that is one of the improvements as a result of his new bureau for translations.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: This is the first time the matter has been called to my attention. I shall look into it and at an early date give an appropriate reply.

Business oj the House-Procedure



PRIVILEGE-MR. DUPUIS

Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: I rise to a question of privilege. In the Montreal newspaper La Presse of January 24 in an article headed "Un drapeau national pour notre dominion," I have been misquoted speaking on that question on the twenty-third. It is very unlikely, but maybe the translation has not been made correctly. On the twenty-third, speaking on this question, I said:
It is all very well to talk about flags and to advance a policy of flag waving for the next election, but to my mind there is something higher and more important than the emblem, no matter how interesting and worthy of respect it may be.
The newspaper quotes me as saying:
(Translation) Mr. Vincent Dupuis, Liberal, Laprairie-Napierville, asked that this question of a flag be forgotten.
I just wish that this should be corrected. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



STATEMENT BY MB. SPEAKER RELATING TO PRACTICE FOLLOWED IN PLACINO QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['A director?\nResolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cahan thereupon >582-13 moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7 to amend and consolidate the acts relating to patents of invention.\nMotion agreed to and bill read the first time.']
Mr. SPEAKER:: Before the orders of the day are called I would like to refer to a question of privilege raised on Wednesday by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) in respect to the placing of questions on the order paper. He referred to questions Nos. 13 and 14 appearing on the order paper of January 23. Question No. 13 read:
Mr. Boulanger:
January 21-Has the Admiralty Act of 1934, chapter 31 of the Statutes of Canada, 1934, been put into force?
That is the way in which the question appeared on the order paper. There was a further question, No. 2, being part of that, the question being:
If not, why not?
That was left out on the order paper. Question No. 14 was dealt with similarly. I think it only fair to the clerks of the house to point out the reason the words " If not, why not " were left out in placing those questions on the order paper. As reported in Hansard of March 5, 1930, this matter came up on a question asked by the present Secretary of State (Mr. -Cahan), as follows:
Mr. Cahan:
1. Is it the intention of the government to introduce to this house a bill confirming the treaty for securing the preservation of the halibut fishery of the north Pacific ocean, which was made between His Majesty the King and the United States of America-
And the question goes on to give the date. The second part of that question was:
If not, why not?
It appears that the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), then leader of the government, immediately raised the question as to whether the " If not, why not " was in order and he quoted standing order 44 which I shall not take time to read to the house, as hon. members are fully aware of its provisions. I shall simply draw attention to these words appearing in the standing order:
But in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered.
The leader of the opposition went on to say:
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that if the government were to attempt to answer the question "If not, why not," we might be drawn into the realm of argument with my hon. friend.
And he further elaborated the same point. Then the present Secretary of State asked this question:
Does your honour rule that the question "If not, why not," necessarily provokes discussion?
The then speaker gave his ruling as follows:
Mr. Speaker: The rule is very clear. In the putting of questions,^ or replying to same, no argument or opinion is to be offered. The purpose of a question which is placed on the order paper is to secure information as to plain matters of fact, and no discussion may arise therefrom. I would rule that the words "If not, why not" are out of order. Questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are answered, I understand, provided' the words "If not, why not" are deleted from the questions.
Following the ruling then made the clerks of the house have since pursued the practice of leaving those words "If not, why not," out of questions to be put on the order paper.



[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend and consolidate the acts relating to patents and invention; to provide for the appointment by the governor in council of a commissioner of patents; to provide for the appointment of an assistant commissioner and such examiners, clerks and stenographers as are necessary for the administration of the act; and to prescribe certain additional fees and charges.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
Patents of Invention
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In moving this resolution
I draw attention to the fact that after a very long, debilitating and painful illness the late commissioner of patents died recently. During the course of his illness it seemed inappropriate to undertake any radical reorganization of the patent office, and I was awaiting the time of his retirement, because he had expressed a desire to retire when he reached the age of sixty-five, at which time his pension could be appropriately determined.
The patent office is, I think, one of the most important branches of any department of government. It has a staff at present of ninety-nine officers, clerks and employees. It is not suggested that these officers and employees are to be removed from office, or that there shall be any change in personnel. It will be necessary to appoint a new commissioner of patents, and the reorganization of the office will, I trust, be carried out by the civil service commission by the division of work between those who are now in the office and who in the course of time have acquired technical experience in its administration. With regard to the appointment of the commissioner of patents, I am suggesting in this resolution and in the bill which I hope I shall be permitted to introduce that the commissioner of patents should be appointed by order of the governor in council. The commissioner must be a man of experience in patent work, one with administrative capacity, with* technical knowledge, and acquainted with both the official languages of this country. It is difficult to find such a man. It is considered that perhaps the government would be better able to select a man for that office than the civil service commission, but that is a matter for the consideration of the house when the bill comes before it.
The volume of business in the patent office is very considerable. During the past fiscal year there were before it 58,904 official transactions. Applications for patents alone totalled 9,267. The examination of applications by the expert officers of the department resulted in allowing 9,621, and 9,122 patents of invention were issued. A large number of assignments of patents or interests in patents were recorded, the deeds registered totalling 6,577.
Then in the patent office there is the copyright branch. Copyright registrations last year numbered 2,537, and with respect to each application for the registration of copyright or trademark, expert knowledge is required in the administration of the office. The trademark registrations numbered 2,066, and assignments of copyrights and trademarks 
amounted to 1,143. Cancellations numbering 843 were made under the unfair competition act which this house passed in 1932.
This branch is important from the point of view of revenue. During the last fiscal year net receipts amounted to $429 341.90, and owing to the general financial situation that represented a decrease in net receipts of $109,998.74. The expenditures of the office amounted to $208,133.13. So that the net revenues of the office, the surplus of receipts over expenditures, amounted to $221,208.77.
In view of the very considerable revenue received and the large expenditure required for the maintenance of the office the government were of opinion that a reorganization should take place in the matter of personnel. This resolution proposes such reorganization. If it had not been for the fact that this resolution and the bill founded upon it involve an expenditure of public funds I think it might have been advantageous if tho bill had been introduced in the Senate, where a committee might have been set up to deal with the technical aspects of the matter. Such a committee might hear representations made by the expert patent lawyers of the country, who undoubtedly will be more or less interested.
The bill is also a consolidation of the patent laws. It involves one very considerable change in patent administration. At the present time the holder of a patent has a complete monopoly with regard to the production of the patented invention during a term of eighteen years, which is, I think, two years longer than is granted in the United Kingdom. But it has been found in practice that this monopoly has been abused by foreign holders of Canadian patent rights. I remember that when the economic conference met in Ottawa in 1932 complaint was made by industrialists throughout Canada that trade with the United Kingdom in certain mechanical appliances, which were patented, was prevented by the fact that the inventors of the United Kingdom, when making assignments or grants to licensees under their patents, were accustomed to include Canada and the United States in one field of operations. I was not able fully to investigate their complaint, but they stated that when they went to the United Kingdom to buy machinery or other mechanical appliances patented and manufactured there, for importation into Canada, they found that in many cases the inventor had granted the sole right to Canadian territory to manufacturers in the United States. They were told that they could not purchase in the United Kingdom but that they must obtain

Patents of Invention
these appliances for use in Canada at some office on Broadway, New York, or in Dayton, Ohio, or in Pittsburgh or Chicago or some other city in the United States, showing that with regard to patents applied for originally in the United Kingdom and thereafter applied for in Canada under the international agreement, to which both the United Kingdom and Canada are parties, monopolies were set up in Canada which prevented the production of the patented process in Canada, although a considerable demand might exist in the Canadian market.
This proposed bill will grant patentees three years during which they will have a complete monopoly. It will provide also that if at the end of three years they do not work the patented invention or process in Canada then, so long as they fail to work it, they will not be able to bring in the courts of Canada actions for infringement of the patented invention which is not worked on a commercial scale within Canada.
As to the working of the patent we have adopted certain words from the English patent act which .it has been suggested are more clear and simple than those formerly included in the statute law of Canada. It is suggested that the inclusion of these words will have this advantage, that the English decisions on the working of patents may be referred to for the advice of our patent officers and for the consideration of our courts when these cases arise.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I should
like to ask the minister a question before he leaves that highly important phase of the amendment. He has stated that the patentee will be entitled to protection in Canada for only three years unless he has sold his patent to some Canadian firm for manufacture. Is that practice in vogue in any other country?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A provision for working
has been adopted in many other countries. I am speaking now with certain mental reservations; I should like to go into the question at a later date, but in many other countries if the patent is not worked at the end of three years the governmental authority can compel the granting of licenses to the domestic manufacturers. As a matter of fact, up to the present under our law it has been provided that compulsory licenses might be granted by the commissioner of patents in case of non-working at the end of three years. The difficulty, however, has been in the administration of the office, to ascertain definitely whether the patent is being worked in Canada at the time the issue arises, and I
was proceeding to state that this bill will require each patentee to make a report to the commissioner at stated intervals as to whether the patent is being worked within the meaning of the act within the confines of Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: I should like to ask one other question while the minister is on that point. In the event of the inventor disposing of his patent and manufacture taking place, is he still protected for the eighteen years?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the patentee or his licensee or assignee is working in Canada, the patentee, assignee or licensee-who are called personal representatives in our act-continues to have a complete monopoly so long as he works on a commercial scale to satisfy the Canadian demand. If the commissioner decides that he is not working so as reasonably to satisfy the Canadian demand provision is made for an appeal from the commissioner's decision to the Exchequer Court of Canada, which I think gives reasonable protection.
This is no party measure. It is simply an earnest effort to overcome some existing evils, and when the bill is before the house or a committee of the house I shall be only too happy to receive suggestions from hon. members. It is difficult to discuss, on this resolution, the express terms of the proposed bill, but I think I have explained quite clearly the general intent of the bill which will be founded upon the resolution now before the house.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I ask
my hon. friend whether it is his intention, after the bill is introduced, to refer it to a committee or to discuss it in the regular way in committee of the whole?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am open to the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman. I should have preferred to present this bill to the committee of the whole house for general discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was not making a suggestion; I was just asking my hon. friend which course he intended to adopt. Certainly he should do as he may think best.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I may state frankly to the hon. gentleman that I would prefer to bring the bill before the committee of the whole house so that the general principles might be affirmed by this house. I have in mind also that when it goes before the Senate, who heretofore have taken a very considerable interest in patent measures, I would be perfectly willing to appear before their committee, as I have in times past, in order that
Patents of Invention

there might be a full examination and investigation by the Senate committee of all matters relating to the proposed bill.


Charles A. Stewart: May I suggest to the minister that inasmuch as this measure affects a veiy large number of Canadian inventors it should go before some committee so that those people interested could appear and make their representations. I believe the bill which will be introduced may have a very far reaching effect upon inventors. Usually an inventor has not very much money to defend himself and I believe his case should be heard before some committee. I am not particular whether it be a committee of the House of Commons or one of the Senate.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I quite agree with the hon. member. I had intended that the bill should be introduced in the Senate in the hope that the proposed amendments might be investigated by a Senate committee, but inasmuch as the measure involves an expenditure of public funds we found it necessary to introduce the measure in this chamber. I shall be happy to leave the matter open and upon second reading of the bill would be very glad to receive any suggestions from hon. gentlemen opposite as to whether or not the bill should go before a committee of the whole house or a select special committee.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: May I ask the minister if he has estimated the number of positions which may be dropped and how many members of the old staff may be dispensed with as a result of the reorganization?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would reply to the hon. member that I had not contemplated the bill -would displace any members of the old staff. I think it will be necessary for the civil service commission to rearrange their duties so that the present staff may perform the duties with greater efficiency and perhaps in lesser time than heretofore. However I had not contemplated a removal of any of the old staff.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, at this stage I do not wish to delay the house by any lengthy observations, but I may say at the outset that I look upon this resolution with a good deal of apprehension. There is no doubt the patent law and the law relating to patents of invention ought to be looked into and brought up to date. There could be no question about the wisdom of that procedure, but I believe the appointment of a commissioner of patents by the governor in council would be a procedure laden with tremendous possibilities and for that reason I am somewhat fearful of the consequences.

Of course when the bill is introduced we will have more detail, but at the moment undoubtedly it appears to be the intention of the government to appoint a commissioner of patents by order in council. The Secretary of State has said that the appointee must be a man who has had wide experience in patent law. That may be quite true, but the minister adds that the civil service commission would find difficulty in selecting a man with such qualifications. Here is another instance of an inroad or an encroachment upon the rights of the civil service commission. We have a civil service commission, and it ought to be given the work to do for which it was created; otherwise it should be scrapped. There is no use at every session of parliament either through the estimates or measures of this kind of nibbling away or decreasing the rights of that commission.
There is a provision whereby technical men may be appointed; boards may be set up by the civil service commission, and that commission may select practically any man or officer. I am very much afraid-in fact I am certain that this measure will have the effect of interfering with the commission. I might go as far as to say that I do believe that at this very moment there are in certain circles some who are pretty well aware of who the incumbent of the position will be.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly he is not known by the department. A number of applications have been received.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That may not be going as far as I have gone, but it is going some distance. Apparently a certain number of applications have been received. Nevertheless it is quite obvious that the present measure involves an encroachment upon the merit system. The former incumbent was a man of vast experience, a civil servant who did credit to his position. He did not step into this particular post, because when Mr. O'Halloran was retired the position -was considerably cut down. The late Mr. Richard in recognition of his work and merit was appointed to the position.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: By the government of the day, I understand.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: But he was then a civil servant, a man who for many years had been employed in that particular branch of the service. He was not an outsider, and I doubt very much whether under the proposed change the government of the day will appoint any one now in the service to fill this position. Undoubtedly it will be a man from the out-

Interpretation Act
side. That point is I think quite clear from the resolution, because in it I find the expression:
To provide for the appointment of an assistant commissioner and such examiners, clerks and stenographers as are necessary for the administration of the act.
Of course when the bill is presented we will know whether or not those appointments are to be made by the governor in council or by the civil service commission. The commission is in office for a purpose and if this government does not want it to operate under the terms of the act why does it not take the responsibility of doing away with it? During the last session a number of appointments were made, and one of the most glaring encroachments upon the powers of the civil service commission was in the dying days of the session. If this government wishes to reform, let it say so in no unmistakable manner; let it say that it is content to abolish the commission.
I reserve the right when the bill is brought down to look into the details. I believe the purpose could be better served by referring the matter to a special committee. The minister knows that some years ago the patent law was reviewed. The copyright law has been reviewed, and I think now is a proper time for a further review of patent law. As any change would have such far reaching consequences for inventors and the general public I believe it should be referred to a select committee.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Will only the chief commissioner and his assistant be appointed by the government, or will all the clerks and employees be so appointed, namely beyond the control of the civil service commission?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The only proposed appointment by the government is the appointment of the commissioner of patents, and the resolution so states. The entire reorganization which will take place and the fixing of the status of other members of the organization will be under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I ask the minister if the chief commissioner will be given the status of a deputy minister, and if not what will be his status?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should think he would be given the status of a superintendent of a branch of a department.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: A director?
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cahan thereupon >582-13 moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7 to amend and consolidate the acts relating to patents of invention.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INTERPRETATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No.
3,	to amend the Interpretation Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned to the house when this bill was introduced, its object is merely to include Remembrance day in the Interpretation Act. By a statute passed by this parliament in 1931 Remembrance day was established throughout Canada as a public holiday. We had formerly observed the day known as Armistice day, but by the act of 1931 that name was changed, and we now celebrate as a public holiday Remembrance day. But the Interpretation Act did not include Remembrance day in the definitions, and there is no power, I understand, on the part of the government by order in council or otherwise to declare a public holiday. The government may declare a day a public holiday and the citizens may observe it as a public holiday, but there is nothing incumbent upon them to do so unless it is so declared by statute. The object of this bill is to make it certain that Remembrance day in the future will be one of the recognized holidays in this dominion. There are from time to time suggestions that other days should be made public holidays, such as Boxing day, which I believe has been established in some of the provinces as a holiday, but no consideration has been given as yet to suggestions of that kind. The only change by this bill will be to make Remembrance day a public holiday.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No.
4,	to amend the Representation Act, 1933.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I assume that there is no principle involved other than the need to amend the Representa-

Representation Act

tion Act as mentioned when the bill was introduced. In such case I have no objection to offer to the second reading.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that all the hon. members immediately concerned have agreed to this. When the act was passed in 1933 a mistake occurred in regard to the boundaries of the city of Hamilton. The city council with the authority of the legislature had changed the boundaries of the city but that was unknown to the House of Commons when the bill was framed in 1933. This bill merely seeks to conform to the present city boundaries of the city of Hamilton.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: May I ask the minister if it will be possible to move certain amendments to the Representation Act correcting abuses when the bill goes to committee, or must that be done now?


Hugh Guthrie: I would think not.


Charles Gavan Power: I did not understand the
minister's reply.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He says
no.


Charles Gavan Power: Under the circumstances, if the minister states that it will be impossible to move amendments to the bill in committee I would like to suggest, before this bill receives its second reading, that there is an urgent need for amendments to the Representation Act, the so-called Redistribution Act of 1933, and had we had the time to prepare for it undoubtedly some such amendments would have been proposed at this stage.
However, on the principle of the bill itself, I should like to note for the future that a representation bill may be amended between the ten-year periods during which it has been customary to allow a representation act to remain as it is. A precedent apparently is being created here, and I hope that there will be no objections to this precedent being followed at a later date in other years. But in order to show that perhaps the Representation Act of 1933 does require almost immediate amendment I wish to call the attention of the house to information which was furnished yesterday by the Secretary of State in answer to a question of mine which read:
How many names were inscribed on the electoral lists of each of the constituencies in the province of Quebec as a result of the recent general registration under the provisions of the Dominion Franchise Act, 1934?
It will be remembered that during the discussion of the redistribution bill in 1933 one of the reasons urged on the house for such drastic changes as were made at that time,

particularly in the province of Quebec, was that it was considered necessary to alter the boundaries of former constituencies in order to give more equality in representation. Now that we have the list of constituencies in at least one province, showing the numbers of electors inscribed on the list, I think the house will be interested to know that this so-called equality of representation has certainly not been achieved. I do not wish to read the numbers of electors in each of the constituencies but I should like to point this out, that in the province of Quebec the very first name on the list is the constituency of Argemteuil, represented in this house by Sir George Perley. The number of electors in that constituency is 10,390, Another rural constituency geographically alongside Argen-teuil is, if I remember rightly, Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. At the present moment, and before the redistribution act comes into force, this constituency is represented by two members, my hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. Ferland) and the hon. member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin), one of the oldest members of this house in point of time of service. These two counties were put together under the redistribution, and the combined population of the county now to be known as Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm is 30,282. That is to say, the voting population; in other words it takes three times more votes to elect one man in this constituency than it does in the constituency of Argenteuil, represented by my right hon. friend the minister without portfolio. I notice also that on the island of Montreal there is no great equality in the distribution of voters. . For instance, the hon. the ex-Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) represents a constituency, that of St. James, in which there are 54,617 voters, whereas the present Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) represents a constituency, St. Lawrenoe-St. George, in which there are 24,570 voters; and my good friend from St. Ann, also on the government side of the house, represents a constituency in which there are 20,638 voters, while my good friend from Jacques Cartier represents a constituency with 20,995 voters. The member for Levis represents a constituency with 14,512 voters, a constituency which is largely urban and partly rural. He is also on the government side of the house.
Even in the city of Quebec my good friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), who represents Quebec West, represents 22,759 voters, and I must say that the number in Quebec South is not very much greater, namely, 23,754. I notice also that Dorchester, repre-

Representation Act
sented by a very able member on the other side of the house (Mr. Gagnon), has 12,535 voters, and Stanstead, also represented by a member on the other side, has a voting population of 14,406.
I thought it worth while to call the attention of the house to some of these figures in order to show that the protests which were made from this side in 1933 have been found to be in some measure justified, and that one of the strongest reasons urged for the adoption of the redistribution as outlined by the government at that time has not worked out in the manner in which we were led to believe.
In the circumstances, inasmuch as the members on this side do not wish to delay the consideration of the very important measures which we are led to believe are about to be brought down, it is likely that no amendments will be moved. But we wish to go on record as expressing once more our disapproval of the act of 1933.


Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I wish to add a word or two to what my hon. friend has said. I may tell the minister that the same condition that exists in the province of Quebec, about which the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has spoken, exists in Ontario. I am not going to take up the time of the house to go into any details, but apparently the government thought in 1933 that they were putting over what they considered a fair redistribution bill. As far as Ontario is concerned, in relation to five or six or seven seats, it is manifestly unfair; it is not a redistribution but a gerrymander. I therefore wish to go on record this afternoon, and some time in the future I shall have an opportunity to go into the matter in more detail.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Hamilton East.
Hugh Guthrie: I do not think I have anything to add to what I formerly said, except this. Under section 51 of the British North America Act a census is taken in this country every ten years and it then becomes the duty of parliament to pass a redistribution act or a representation act to conform with the figures found by the census. It is not therefore usual and I do not know whether it is proper until another census has been taken, to change at all the basis of that act.
This bill which I now propose is purely technical; it is really to correct a clerical error or an error made by the committee or 92582-134
those who dealt with the matter on the assumption that they were dealing with the correct boundaries of the city of Hamilton. Subsequently it turned out that they did not deal with the correct boundaries. I was asked to bring in the bill; I consulted the various members interested, the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell), the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) and the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson) and they all thought the mistake should be remedied. I have also consulted with the chief electoral officer; he has consulted with the franchise commissioner and he says that no difficulty will be involved in the lists; that there is sufficient power now to correct the lists in respect of both the Hamilton ridings.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not intend to offer opposition, but I want to express my surprise at the action of the government and the reason given for the amended sections in connection with the city of Hamilton. Hamilton is not by any means, may I point out to the minister, the only city where boundaries have been ignored. In nearly every city in the dominion boundaries were not taken into consideration. Calgary, the western portion of which the Prime Minister represents, has been cut into three constituencies. Moreover, I want to point out to the committee that upon investigating the redistribution bill after it was passed by the house, I was surprised that some of the arrangements that had been made had not been carried out, but I assumed the matter was settled and settled for ten years and I made no protest. The reason offered by the minister that it is found the redistribution dealing with the city of Hamilton is in error because it does not conform with city boundaries, does not seem to be a valid excuse for opening up or changing this particular constituency. I do not assume any great political advantage will be gained by what is being done, but I am strongly of opinion, unless territory is omitted altogether and individuals are disfranchised, the redistribution should stand as passed by the House of Commons at the last session. As I pointed out before, I cannot see very much in the contention that those two particular constituencies have suffered any injury by the redistribution bill of last year.


Charles Gavan Power: I am rather interested in
the argument of the Minister of Justice which in effect is this, that if a clerical error is found, we may very properly change the Representation Act within the ten-year period,
Representation Act

but if a glaring injustice has been committed with malice aforethought, we should not do so.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Might I point out to the minister that the description that is now sought to be changed is a definite description of certain portions of the city of Hamilton. The Representation Act of 1924 which was followed by the act of 1933, provided this description:
Hamilton East consisting of that part of the city of Hamilton lying east of Wellington street and west of Ottawa street.
Clear, definite boundaries, a definite part of the city of Hamilton.
Hamilton West consisting of that part of the city of Hamilton lying west of Wellington streeet, east of Paradise road, and north of Coate's Paradise.
That is a definite section of Hamilton.


Hugh Guthrie: The point is they did
not include the city of Hamilton.


John Campbell Elliott: They did not purport to
include the city of Hamilton.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, they did.


John Campbell Elliott: There were two parts of
the city of Hamilton and the boundaries remain the same. This is a change made in the act which was passed two years ago, and it is a change in direct contravention of the law that changes shall take place only every ten years. If there were a part left out, or if it had not been properly described, I could see the strength of my hon. friend's desire now to make an amendment so that clearly every part would be taken in. But that is not the point in this case. These sections were drawn and it was clearly intended that so far as the two Hamiltons were concerned, there would be no change.


Hugh Guthrie: I was not present in the house at the time the Representation Act was passed; I was out of the country; but my understanding was that the city of Hamilton was to be entitled to two seats and when the clause was drafted it was supposed the city of Hamilton had been included in the two seats. Subsequently it turned out that the boundaries of the city of Hamilton had been changed; now the two seats do not describe that city and the object of that bill is to describe Hamilton and to include the city in two seats.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend very
fairly states that he is not familiar with what took place. What happened was this: in certain ridings there was to be no change.

That was set out at the early meetings of the redistribution committee; when the general committee met it was decided that there would be no change in so many ridings, and the two ridings of Hamilton were included among those.


Hugh Guthrie: That is what we want
to make it-two ridings.


John Campbell Elliott: The two portions of
Hamilton were constituted two ridings. There was no change. The point I want to make is this, that we are making a change now. If this change is entitled to be made, whether it is of advantage or disadvantage to either party is not the point; we are now revising the Representation Act within a period of ten years.


Hugh Guthrie: No, we are correcting
an error.


Mr. MacNICOL:: The remarks of the
hon. member for West Middlesex are correct to a certain extent, that is as to the opinion of the committee at the time the two ridings of Hamilton and that of Wentworth were considered. The committee understood and agreed unanimously that the boundaries of those three ridings were not to be disturbed, were to remain as they were; but apparently when the measure was drafted the boundaries were disturbed, contrary to the will of the committee. I for one, am in accord with the bill before the house, because it amends the act to read according to the intention of the committee. As the act now reads it does not conform with the intention of the committee. The two members for Hamilton and the member for Wentworth were consulted at the time and they agreed unanimously with the committee's recommendations that the ridings as they were prior to the last redistribution measure were not to be changed, and as I understand it the bill before the committee now restores the boundaries as they were.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is quite different from what the minister said.


John Campbell Elliott: May I point out that my hon. friend is under a misapprehension. Let me read the boundaries as they were when the committee decided that there should be no change. Take first Hamilton East; this is volume 4 of the revised statutes-


Mr. BENNETT:: It is printed in the bill.


John Campbell Elliott: But the Prime Minister will notice that what was decided on two years ago was as the old description is printed in the bill.

Representation Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is printed in the bill, to which reference is made, is a description of the city of Hamilton which was thought to be correct, but as a matter of fact it was not a correct description, the boundaries of the city of Hamilton having been changed. I think a similar course was followed in 1924-25 in connection with the redistribution of 1923, in regard to one item.


John Campbell Elliott: Under the explanatory notes the existing boundaries, that is existing at the time this amendment is proposed, are given as follows:
Hamilton East consisting of that part of the city of Hamilton lying east of Wellington street and west of Ottawa street.
That is exactly as it was before the redistribution. There was no change made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, those were the boundaries of Hamilton in 1923.


John Campbell Elliott: No, we are talking of
Hamilton East.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the two together
made the city of Hamilton.


John Campbell Elliott: It is not relating particularly to the boundaries of Hamilton, it is Hamilton East. That would be the part between certain streets. That is the same in both acts. We have Hamilton West, consisting of that part of the city of Hamilton lying west of Wellington street, east of Paradise road, and north of Cootes Paradise. That is exactly as it was in the old act, no change. What is now sought to be changed is the description that was clearly settled at the time of redistribution.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My hon. friend knows very' well that there was to be no change whatever in those three ridings, Hamilton East, Hamilton West and Wentworth.


John Campbell Elliott: And there was not.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would like to ask my hon. friend a question. He talks about arrangements and agreements; were all those arrangements and agreements kept?


John Ritchie MacNicol: My hon. friend refers to-


Frederick George Sanderson: Sanctity of the contract.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -certain ridings. I told my hon. friend I was very sorry-


Frederick George Sanderson: Spare your sorrow.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It was not the fault of the committee.


Frederick George Sanderson: Do not be sorry for me, I can take care of myself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where is the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote)? The section refers to Cootes Paradise.


Mr. GAGNON:: May I be permitted to say a few words in reply to the remarks made by my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power). In giving some figures about some constituencies of Quebec I am afraid he has, doubtless unwittingly, given the committee a false impression. I ask him to refer to the debates in 1932-33, volume 5, page 5414, English edition where he will find the exact figures of the counties of the province of Quebec. If I may be permitted to quote a few figures he w'ill see that the member for Dorchester has not, as my hon. friend has led the committee to believe, organized a little county for himself.


Charles Gavan Power: In order that there may be no misunderstanding permit me to correct my hon. friend by telling him that I was quoting the number of electors on the electoral lists furnished to me yesterday by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) which presumably he had from the franchise commissioner, thus being up-to-date, showing the number of persons having the right to vote in the constituencies of the province of Quebec. I was not referring to population.


Onésime Gagnon: I accept the hon. member's explanation, but I think I might be permitted to add that when the members of the committee dealt with redistribution in 1932 they took into account the exact population of each county. If I may quote the figures given during the debate in 1933 on the redistribution bill he will find that for instance the county of Argenteuil to which my hon. friend referred had a population of 27,885. The county of Dorchester, which is also a rural district, has 27,155. Bellechasse, a neighbouring county to Dorchester, has 27,480, and the county of Levis which is near Dorchester and Bellechasse has a population of 28,548. So there is but a slight difference between the numbers of inhabitants in these three counties. These figures clearly show that the committee dealt with the redistribution of these counties in a fair and equitable manner.


Charles Gavan Power: We will agree on that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On the title.
Charles A. Stewart: Before the title carries I would remark to the minister
Representation Act

that I think he is establishing a precedent that may have far-reaching effects. As I have pointed out, the excuse given for this change does not seem to me to warrant opening up the redistribution act. The precedent might be taken advantage of.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is quite obvious that under the statute there is only one redistribution to be made; that is consequent upon the decennial census. Taking the population of the province of Quebec and dividing by seventy-five you get your population base, and from that you make a calculation with respect to the other provinces, subject to the provis-sions of the statute with respect to fractions If this amendment were designed to change the basis of representation I would entirely agree with what has been said. But what happened was that the committee concluded that the city of Hamilton should continue with two members, and the neighbouring county of Wentworth should have one member. And they set down, wrote into the statute, the exact description of the city of Hamilton as it had been in 1924 when the last redistribution was made. The city of Hamilton was not properly described in that statute, that is the city of Hamilton of 1933. Therefore the change is now being made to define correctly the city of Hamilton. That is all.
With respect to the discrepancies in the number of electors on the list, it is hardly fair to take that as a base. The statute says the population is a base for comparison. It might well be that the number on the list of electors might represent a population much larger than that of a neighbouring county that had a smaller number of electors on its list, because the qualifications of electors under the Franchise Act is limited to British subjects of a certain age. If there were residing in a nearby community a large number of persons not qualified to be placed on the list it would obviously follow that any comparison based on the number of people on the voters' list would not be a fair comparison. My memory is-I am speaking subject to correction, I have sent for the statute-that after the last redistribution it was found necessary to correct a technical error, and I believe that on more than one occasion it has been necessary to do so.
I cannot add anything to what has been said by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) nor do I desire to do so. What he said is perfectly clear, namely that he has endeavoured to correct an incorrect description of the city of Hamilton as it appears in the statute of 1933, to define correctly the area that was to be represented in this house by two members.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not want to be misunderstood. A few moments ago I said that city boundaries played no important part in the redistribution of 1933, and I think every member of this house will agree with that statement. I want to point out to the committee and to the minister that to-day you are changing a boundary. You are no interfering with the representation; you are merely changing boundaries on the plea that it is to conform with city boundaries. That being the case I say you are setting up a very definite precedent which might be taken advantage of for party purposes if need be. This is something which, if it was used heretofore, was for the purpose of correcting errors; now it is being used for the purpose of correcting boundaries, and city boundaries have nothing at all to do with the boundaries as set out in the redistribution act, 1933. In some cases you conform to such boundaries, but in many other cases there is no conformation to boundaries at all. That is all I wish to say.


John Campbell Elliott: I should like to say just a word in answer to the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension. The city of Hamilton was not discussed by the committee. What was before the committee was East Hamilton, West Hamilton and Wentworth. There was very little discussion about those constituencies, because they were left unchanged.
Bill reported.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 5 to amend the criminal code.
He said: Before the motion is adopted may I say that in introducing this bill I overlooked referring to two of its provisions. I thought the bill contained only a single clause in regard to the jury system in the province of Saskatchewan, but there are two other amending clauses in the bill as well. They are not very important, but I understood that they formed part of another bill, and was not aware that they were in this measure.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do you refer to the amendment with regard to race meetings?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the dhair.﻿JANUARY 25, 1935
A Canadian Flag
On section 1-Race meetings.
Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps I had better offer a word of explanation. Last year we amended the criminal code to provide that there might be fourteen days of continuous racing on authorized race tracks instead of two meetings of seven days each. In drafting the bill, however, we did not state that these days must be consecutive. Consequently there has been an attempt on the part of some race track proprietors to say they have had only half a day of racing or no racing at all because of rain or for some other reason, and to spread the period over more than fourteen days. This amendment is designed to make it clear that the fourteen days must be consecutive. The last few words of the section make it clear that there are to be only two meetings, if the fourteen day meeting is not carried on. The two meetings are to consist of seven days each, and they must be twenty days apart.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Pension Act.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I desire very briefly to support the principle of this legislation. I could have wished for a specific period to be mentioned but perhaps, because of the uncertainty as to the accumulation of work, that might not be possible. I should like also to take this opportunity of commending the work performed by the acting chairman of the Canadian pension commission since the last session of parliament. I think he has handled his work effectively and with expedition, and I want to take this, the first opportunity, to pay that tribute to him.
When the bill is in committee of the whole I should like the minister, if possible, to give the committee some information with regard to the arrears of work at present confronting the members of the Canadian pension commission, and I should also like the minister's own estimate as to how long it will take to have that work cleared up with the aid of the two or three new commissioners. With these observations I desire to commend the principle of this bill.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
On section 1-Tenure of office.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, January 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dickie:
That, in the opinion of this house, a national flag representing the Dominion of Canada should be adopted.
And that in any design for a Canadian flag the union jack must be conspicuous, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Arthurs.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, when this resolution came before the house I expressed the hope but not the sure confidence that I might be able to make some definite suggestions which would meet with the approval of those who have conflicting opinions with regard to the adoption of a national flag. I believe it is obvious that the adoption of a flag should be made with a certain degree of unanimity of public opinion, otherwise it is not likely to serve the purpose we have in view, namely that of creating a solidarity of national sentiment. I believe under the circumstances it would be quite impossible in a few days or perhaps during the whole session to reach anything like unanimity of opinion on either side of the house. To set up a committee at this time which could not report and provide for definite action during the present term of parliament would not be sufficient, because there must be very considerable discussion and further action before a national flag may be definitely, permanently and finally adopted.
A Canadian Flag

I find that the question of the continuation of the present marine flag is involved and so there would be very considerable conflict of opinion.
If the house acquiesces I should like to suggest that the mover and seconder of the amendment and the original mover and seconder of the motion might consider the propriety of withdrawing the motion at the present time, because any action which may now be taken is not likely to achieve the end which the great majority of hon. members must have in view, namely the design of a flag which will have unanimity of public sentiment behind it and will be accepted generally as our flag for the future.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: Mr. Speaker, as the mover of the amendment I have the permission of my seconder to withdraw. I can understand readily that in a matter of this kind it is wise to go slowly because of the necessary investigations which must be made. Consequently in view of the fact that we will be having a business session, so far as I am concerned I am content to withdraw the amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, if it will help to relieve the government of its embarrassment and let us get on with social reform I shall have no objection to offer from this side of the house to allowing the member who moved the resolution to withdraw it. I must say we witnessed an amazing spectacle when we saw hon. gentlemen opposite take up an entire day in a discussion of this measure. What was even more amazing was the fact that they spent the afternoon differing from each other. Hon. members on this side of the house had gained the impression from what the Prime Minister had said that there was nothing so urgent as the immediate reform of the capitalist system, that we were to have legislation as soon as the house met which would begin to set everything to rights, and that the government would bring in an insurance measure with respect to unemployment and with respect to pretty much everything else that could be mentioned as coming within the classification of social insurance. We have on the order paper the following resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to establish an employment and social insurance commission; to provide for a national employment service; for insurance against unemployment; for aid to unemployed persons and for other forms of social insurance and security and for purposes related thereto; and to

provide for such contributions as may be necessary to carry into effect the proposed legislation.
According to what the Prime Minister said to the house this matter was so urgent that he felt obligated to have the notice I have read appear on the order paper on the first day the house considered the address, and it is somewhat surprising the resolution has remained unproceeded with ever since. The government is not ready to proceed with it. Last night I asked the Prime Minister if he could not arrange to proceed with the resolution to-day and he said that it would have to stand until Monday. The government has still to consider the legislation which the people of Canada were told by radio broadcasts was all ready and special mention of which would appear in the speech from the throne. They were told that we must have these measures enacted at once. The trend of every speech that the Prime Minister made was that this matter was so important that great haste would have to be made in it. Now we of the opposition have tried to do what we could to expedite the introduction of this legislation. I think hon. members will admit that we have refrained from discussion, for except for one speech there was no discussion from the official opposition of the speech from the throne. With respect to private members' resolutions we have refrained from participating in those debates, rendering our position liable, if you will, to be misconstrued in the public mind as not supporting to the extent that we should these various measures. With regard to the bills that have been discussed this afternoon we have cooperated with hon. gentlemen opposite in getting them through different stages just as rapidly as possible. I think in that regard our attitude has been made very clear.
The other afternoon, when we had only the afternoon to devote to public business, hon. gentlemen opposite took up the entire time of this house from three o'clock to ten minutes to six with a discussion of this flag resolution. There were nineteen members I think on the Conservative benches who participated in that debate. And what did it all amount to? The hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) knew as well at that time as he does to-day that it was going to be a difficult matter to get unanimity in his own party on that question. He only had to sit there and listen to them fighting each other over it.
I want to take exception to one remark my hon. friend made this afternoon when he said that he thought there would be difficulty in having unanimity upon the subject

A Canadian Flag
on this side. This question has been before the house before and we have been unanimous from the start, and we are to-day.
I do submit that the whole purpose of that discussion the other afternoon was to give the ministry time to see what it could do in the way of getting together some of the legislation that the Prime Minister said over the radio was all in readiness and must be put through just as quickly as possible. If it is going to help hon. gentlemen opposite to get out of their embarrassment, and more particularly if it is going to enable us to get nearer to the point where we can consider legislation that the country is waiting for, we shall consent to the withdrawal of the resolution, but our consent is on those grounds and those alone.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman has availed himself of this opportunity to attack the government with respect to its legislative program and he has made statements that are at variance, I am happy to say, with the facts. The resolution which was debated in this house was a private member's resolution Its subject was more or less a hardy perennial and has been discussed with a good deal of feeling, and sometimes with acrimony. It was not put on the order paper at the instance of the government. It was put on by a private member on his own responsibility, and I may say without consultation with the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I never said that it was put on at the instance of the government. I said that it was debated all afternoon to give the government a chance to make up its mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will deal with that too. That is not true-that is a short way to put it.
Now let us go a step further. The right hon. gentleman has said that the differences of opinion that manifested themselves on this side of the house with respect to a private member's motion had something to do with the legislative program of the government. As a matter of fact, until I saw in Hansard what had transpired I was not aware of the differences of opinion to which attention has been directed, except for what I was told, for I was engaged in seeing people in the room adjoining. I was not considering the government's legislative program.
With respect to the notice of motion that stands in my name I put it upon the order paper because it had been mooted that the opposition would not discuss the speech from
the throne, and I gave notice so that I might advance it one step without having any possible delay.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why has it not been advanced two steps?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just because it is not in accordance with the plans we have with respect to it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the very reason. It is the reason which the right hon. gentleman himself gave when he was Prime Minister with respect to some of his legislation.
The debate that took place in this house on the resolution of a private member had no relation in any way, sense or form, direct or indirect, to the consideration of the measure that will be submitted to this house when the resolution standing in my name has been adopted by this chamber. I assure the right hon. gentleman of that, and if he has his usual suspicions with respect to it he can satisfy himself by inquiry that that is so.
The bill about which he talks, and which he insinuated had not been printed,- was as a matter of fact placed in form on exactly the last day of March, I think, in 1934. It was discussed with the Department of Justice and the minister prior to that date. When I introduce the bill into, this house, and the house understands, as it will, the complexities and the difficulties of this measure, it will realize that there is a good reason for everything that I have said-a very good reason indeed.
When I said, speaking over the radio, that it was important that these matters should not be delayed, the right hon. gentleman knew quite well that I was speaking to an intelligent public which did not expect parliament to meet one day, pass legislation the next, and prorogue the next.


Charles A. Stewart: I fear that
was the impression they got.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I do not think intelligent people got that impression.
May I go further, because I regard this matter as important? I said that this was the time to introduce the legislation, and that is the reason it is being introduced this session. But there are many things that parliament has to deal with besides a single measure. The method of dealing with it, the time that will be taken up, the maintenance of the public service-all these are matters which the government must have in mind. We have pointed out on more than one
A Canadian Flag

occasion that there would be just as small a program of legislation dealing with these various matters as is consistent with the public interest. We have made that abundantly clear from the start. It will not be on Monday that this measure will be dealt with because that is private members' day. It will be dealt with on Tuesday.
There is no necessity for the heroics of the right hon. gentleman. Does he believe for a moment that anyone is deceived by this sort of talk? I wonder if a highly trained mind such as his thinks for a moment that the intelligent people of this country are deceived by these mock heroics? Does he imagine for a moment that anybody is deceived but himself when he talks about his anxiety that this thing should be done, expecting that it might be done in a day or a day and a half, or two days. I have heard some of his own friends suggest why he did not want parliament to rise too soon, that it must sit fifty days at least. But that is not a reason.
We are proceeding in an orderly manner with the legislation that we are submitting to this house. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodswortli) is aware of the statement that was made in this house by myself that before this house had finished its life we would introduce an unemployment insurance bill, and from the day that we completed the census, which was long after the time that we might expect, of the number of unemployed, because we put a special schedule in the census returns to ascertain what the number of unemployed was on June 1, 1931-from the completion of that census we have been engaged in the preparation of this legislation, and when it is before the house, the house will realize just what is involved in it and the difficulties that had to be overcome in its preparation. The first mimeographed copy of it I think was completed in the early part of 1934, the basis for the preparation of the act having been obtained in England in 1933, and from that time until this we have been engaged upon that legislation. I said yesterday that the cabinet desired to consider it further on Saturday because the change of a single cent with respect either to contributions or compensation necessitates the making of new actuarial computations, and as the facts develop and further information is obtained questions arise necessitating consideration. I believe that the bill was actually printed, instead of mimeographed, at the time I was making my addresses on the radio, and cer-

tainly it has been mimeographed since 1934. It certainly was mimeographed then.
Now I desire to make that observation, because I think it is not deceiving anyone, not even the right hon. gentleman himself, to assume that in the statements that have been made there was any thought that parliament was to meet in the morning pass legislation in the afternoon and prorogue in the evening. That was not the purpose; but in an orderly and proper manner parliament will proceed with the work that has to be done and I have no doubt that in due course it will be passed. But there are other matters. Estimates must be dealt with; the public service must be maintained; there must be provision to deal with the conditions that exist in western Canada where they say that they are so largely dependent upon what they get from us to maintain the lives of their people and the credit of their provinces. These matters have to be dealt with and they will be dealt with. No one suggested that everything else would be dropped in order to proceed with particular legislation. But at this session not at some other session, at this time, not at some other time, we propose to deal with these things and, as the result of that intention, we shall proceed with them in due course.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: The Prime Minister suggests that I insinuated something. If he will look at Hansard he will find that I insinuated nothing. I asked one direct and plain question and I put it in the politest terms possible:
May I ask my right hon. friend if the bill related to this resolution is drafted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: And what was said about not being printed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was a straight question I asked my right hon. friend. As to its not being printed, I said nothing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am reading exactly what I said last night:
Mr. Mackenzie King: What business will be taken up to-morrow?
Then the Prime Minister answered.
Air. Mackenzie King: But with regard to the order in the name of the Prime Minister, the one he mentioned was of such great importance that he had thought it necessary last week to give notice of proceeding with it immediately what is to be done? It is the one to which we attach the most importance. Could not my right hon. friend arrange to proceed with it to-morrow?
Mr. Bennett: Which one is that?

Health Policy-Mr. Howden
Mr. Mackenzie King: The one relating to the establishment of an employment and social insurance commission.
Mr. Bennett: I do not propose to proceed with it to-morrow.
_ Mr. Mackenzie King: But that is the most important of any.
Mr. Bennett: It may be, but I do not propose to proceed with it until Monday.
May I pause here to say that in speaking this afternoon the Prime Minister did not say Monday but Tuesday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did say Monday but realized then that Monday is private members' day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought at the time that my right hon. friend was making a mistake though I confess that I did not call his attention to the fact. Then I asked the Prime Minister this question:
Mr. Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend if the bill related to this resolution is drafted?
The Prime Minister thereupon made a reply, following which I said:
Mr. Mackenzie King: What puzzles1 me was the haste of my right hon. friend to give notice of his intention to proceed with the resolution introduced last Monday, and yet his not being able to proceed to-morrow.
And that ends all I had to say. Where did I insinuate anything about the legislation not being printed? That is pure bluff, just the kind of thing the Prime Minister has been giving the public over the radio.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman, if he now desires to engage in that kind of discussion, is out of order. He has no right to be making a speech of this kind at this time; he knows that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the Prime Minister to have the right to misrepresent my position?


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: What is the business now before the house, Mr. Speaker?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister accuses me of heroics and speaks about the public not being deceived by them. The public will not be deceived by any of his heroics over the radio.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I say is that the right hon. gentleman suggested last night that the bill was not drafted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister asks what was said about the bill not being printed. It is bluff, like all the rest. My right hon. friend has been found in the position he now takes too often.


Mr. POULIOT:: May I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that there is a strong odour of grease in the house. It must be the smell of the social legislation which is being fried in the pan in the Prime Minister's office.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the house that the amendment be withdrawn?
Amendment withdrawn.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question is on the main motion.


Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):: I can assure the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that it was through no desire of mine that the debate on my resolution lasted an afternoon. I considered that it had sufficient merit to be carried through the house in an hour. However, in view of the fact that it has proved highly contentious; and that, being highly contentious, it has given rise to a debate which is likely to be prolonged should it be proceeded with; and because of the eagerness and avidity of the opposition and even of some of our members to have some of the more important economic measures proceeded with, I respectfully ask, with the consent of my seconder, that permission be granted to have the resolution expunged from the order paper.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not expunged, withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.



FEDERAL HEALTH POLICY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, January 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Spencer:
That, in the opinion of this house, the federal government should adopt a definite health policy which could he carried on in cooperation with the provincial governments.
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: I
assure the mover of this resolution that what I have to say will be a word of commendation. I congratulate him on his consistency and persistency and on the many excellent efforts brought forward in the house in this regard; and I am also glad to congratulate him on the fact that now, probably for the first time, his efforts, judging by the remarks of the Minister of Pensions and National Health, are going to meet with success.
This is a worthy subject. I have been a medical man for over thirty years and in that time I have had ample opportunity to realize

Health Policy-Mr. Howden
that there was a great deal of need for a movement along these lines. You may call it state medicine if you like, but it has been long known to most medical men that the cost of medical service has borne and still bears very heavily on a large proportion of the citizens of this country. The well to do have never been concerned, for they could pay the cost; and for those in the lower and more humble walks of life who had no resources from which to pay, there was little concern, for the free clinics and the public wards of the hospitals looked after them pretty efficiently. But for those persons who wished to pay their way, with whom it was an honest desire if at all possible to meet the cost themselves, there was a real hardship; the cost of medical service bore very heavily upon them.
With that thought in mind I was prompted in 1931 to bring before the house a resolution that, in the opinion of the house, a measure of federal state medicine was in the best interests of the Canadian people. That resolution was debated through one entire afternoon and on into the evening. There were about nineteen speakers in the debate, including a good many on the government side of the house; and I think I am stating the truth when I say that, if not in every instance, at any rate in the vast majority of instances, the resolution met with sympathetic consideration. Nearly every speaker spoke in support of it with the exception of the Prime Minister, the then Minister of Pensions and National Health, and one or two others in the house. So I might pause here to assure the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) that his resolution will, I believe, have the undivided support of members on this side of the house, and from what appears to be the situation at present, there will probably be no opposition.
In the next year, 1932, I had the temerity to bring the matter up again under a different heading, namely:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration steps that would: (a) provide for periodic medical examination of the Canadian people; (b) afford medical relief for those suffering from disease.
On that occasion the motion did not reach the house until fairly well on in the session, and although it was given some consideration, it was too late in the session for it to be thoroughly debated. Both of these resolutions and. I believe, the motion of the hon. member for Battle River have in view in some form or another some degree of state medicine. whether it be federal or provincial or a combination of the two. I believe the only

way of dealing with the matter to the satisfaction of the people and the medical profession-and the medical profession has a right to be considered-is a measure providing for state medicine.
I would like to bring this feature of the situation to the attention of the house: in greater Winnipeg medical men have for some time had to take what they could get and that was very little, but in the last few months we have had established there relief measures. They amount to this: as regards surgeons, for a major operation for which a surgeon could formerly demand and command a fee anywhere from $100 to $500, he is to-day paid $25. Not only has the ordinary routine medical attendance been considerably diminished, but after a medical man completes his month and has given service in each of the several municipalities of greater Winnipeg, -and there are six or seven of them-running up to $150 or $200, or something of that kind, all he gets for his combined services in all municipalities is $100 a month. It is possible, therefore, if a medical man's patients have to a very large degree fallen on evil days and are now on relief, his entire salary may amount to $100 a month. A salary of $100 a month is, of course, better than nothing but compared with the fees that ordinarily would foe paid to a doctor for efficient and intelligent services and the quantity of work of this kind he is expected to do, it does not seem to be an entirely fair way of treating him.
I noticed a remark by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Sutherland) that the purpose of state medicine and these movements generally was to bring efficient medical attention to the Canadian people. That is very true; that was the original idea, but the doctor should get some consideration somewhere. I well remember when I was a youngish man, a good many of the younger medical men had to struggle pretty hard to make a living, while the older men were making good incomes but were overworked. The younger men very often got nothing to do and made no money, and at the same time a large portion of the population went without medical attention. As I said before, for this reason I was prompted to bring these two measures for state medicine before the house. I do not believe any measure of state medicine in Canada will be satisfactory unless it is practically the same for each province. I believe the federal authority should exercise a supervision, requiring uniform conditions in all the provinces, for which the federal authority would be prepared to pay. The

Health Policy-Mr. Stanley
federal authority has at its disposal the means of raising funds much more easily than the provinces, and I have no reason to doubt that if it prescribed uniform conditions of this character for the provinces and was prepared to pay for those prescribed conditions, the various provinces would gladly accept the suggestion and the assistance.
Although I believe in the majority of the provinces there is a fairly satisfactory state of affairs so far as medical relief, medical care and even medical research are concerned, still the situation is by no means alike in all the provinces because undoubtedly at this time some of the provinces are spending and are able to spend much more money than are others. I believe what we want in this country-and I may not find many in support- is state medicine, federal state medicine. Let each province have its own machinery of state medicine, but let there be a federal supervision which would prescribe uniform conditions for the provinces and which would extend the necessary assistance to permit those conditions to be brought about.
In discussing this matter for the second time in 1932 I gave a list of benefits that were to be derived, that would accrue to the people of this country by a form of state medicine. That list was not original with me; it was the finding of a commission that had been appointed to inquire into the advisability of the adoption of state medicine.
I thought it was very much to the point, and with your permission, sir, I shall restate the benefits mentioned in that address:
At present there are in Canada several thousand regularly qualified medical men and many other so-called doctors, in all probably a greater number than is actually required, ... Under state medicine there would be just as many doctors, nurses, masseurs and druggists as were actually required, and practitioners of doubtful value would be eliminated.
I do not think that requires any explanation.
At present there are in many towns and cities more doctors than are needed, while many rural communities are entirely without medical service. Under state medicine every community would be part of some health district and the service would reach every family in the land.
At present doctors are competitors of each other and economic pressure makes professional ethics farcical and impossible largely to the cost and undoing of the patient. Under state medicine there would be no need for ethics; professional cooperation would predominate.
At present doctors in general are poorly paid, fees are irregularly collected and the financial interferes constantly with the professional side. Under state medicine doctors would be paid suitable salaries commensurate with their ability and work. They would strive to secure advancement and would not be
harassed with the anxiety of ill-health, a penniless old age or lack of income. These matters would be taken care of by the state.
At present the medical profession thinks the rich and well-to-do should pay for the services rendered to the poor, but the rich resent being penalized in this manner. Under state medicine all men, rich and poor alike, would receive the best we have to offer.
At present the people consult physicians only in the instance of a known or obvious ailment and often when the disease is well-established. Under state medicine preventive medicine by periodic health examination would overcome this evil and would supplant largely the system of curative medicine now pertaining.
At present consultations with specialists are expensive and frequently too long delayed. Under state medicine consultations would be free and there would be no cause for delay. Suspected cases of cancer, tuberculosis, and so on, could be promptly diagnosed and given a chance of recovery.
At present people spend millions yearly in self-prescribed and counter-prescribed medicines, often of no value. Under state medicine there would be no patent medicines, nostrum or other drug traffic.
At present the medical service is hindered by lack of public confidence, the economic interest of the doctor and the patient being largely opposed. Under state medicine the economic interest of the doctor and the patient would coincide and the service would give full confidence.
I need not read further. There are many other reasons stated in the debate on that occasion. I believe we need state medicine, that is, a combination of federal and provincial medicine, which would provide for the yearly examination of the Canadian people. The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Sutherland) may say that we could not take a person by the shoulders and drag him to the doctor if he did not want to go; but I think if it were understood that the examination was available to him he would readily go and be examined. It seems to me we require a scheme of federal and provincial state medicine under which the Canadian people can and will be annually examined once or twice, and if found to be the victims of disease will receive suitable treatment. Disease in this country would thus be cleaned up, making of Canada a better and a happier land.


Mr. G. D. STANLEY (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, may I express my congratulations to the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) upon having introduced this resolution, and upon introducing it in the terms in which it is now before the house. It gives us an opportunity of discussing in a general way questions of health which relate so intimately to our whole population. One of the most necessary and fundamental factors in the success of health activities or health

Health Policy-Mr. Stanley
measures is that we should have an educated and rational minded public. Unless we have people who think sanely and are sufficiently educated in health matters to be able to use intelligently the services made available to them, we are not likely to attain much success in respect of any measures forced upon them. Hence the jurisdiction as we find it in this country, giving the municipality or the local health unit certain authority in regard to health matters, and then coming to the provincial organization and then to the federal Department of Health is, I think, rational and logical.
In regard to active, curative medical services extended by medical men to a family we should keep in mind the fact that there must be that close relationship, that feeling of confidence, that spirit of cooperation which will accept in a reasonable and willing manner the services which are extended. Consequently the present arrangement, which leaves in the hands of the municipalities the direction of matters pertaining to health, and which in no way interferes with that intimacy of relationship between physician and patient, is an ideal arrangement and one that must be maintained no matter what reorganization may be undertaken. The success of the treatment depends upon the intimacy of the relationship and the confidence between patient and physician. If one had the time and inclination to go back over the history of the development of medicine, one could show that only during those periods when that relationship of which I have been speaking existed did success attend medical or health activities. When ignorance, superstition and irrational thinking predominated and interferred with the proper and scientific use of health and medical science, then the services degenerated. It is a strange coincidence all through history that during those ages, from the earliest days to the present, when ignorance, superstition and irrational thinking predominated among the people of almost every land medical services and science and health activities were at their lowest ebb.
I have not time to go back over history. One might point to a few of the peaks in the development of health activities, hospitalization and medical science. For instance, from the earliest days until the time of Hippocrates who is looked upon as the father of medical science ignorance and superstitution predominated and no success was attained. But a remarkable change was brought about by the dominating influence of that master mind who lived in a period when, not only in connection with medicine but in almost every other line, people as a whole were 
more rationally minded. Hon. gentlemen will recall that Hippocrates lived contemporaneously with Socrates, Pericles, Euripides and other outstanding Greek philosophers, and the success which was achieved away back in the time of that civilization was brought about only by the application of rational measures of education to the people who were prepared to accept such measures and such advanced science.
Then you come along to the dark ages, when medical matters, health activities, hospital development, nursing and everything pertaining to medical science became a lost art. That was when the ignorance of the times defeated any spasmodic efforts made by men who happened to take some advanced stand in the promotion of something better. So we come along to the day of John Hunter, when another change took place. The superstition, ignorance and irrational thinking of the general public began to change, and as they became educated so the scientific measures advanced by this man began to exert an influence. So we come on down to the day of Pasteur, Lister and Florence Nightingale. They attained scientific advancement without a doubt, but had there not been a change in the educational attainments of the people in general and a desire for something better, their efforts would have been defeated. There was a change, not only in medical matters but in other spheres of activity as well. If you let your minds go back to about 1800, when this change began to be noticed, you will remember that in almost every line of development, whether it was economics, politics, business, finance or any other line, there was a general, gradual improvement, and with that came the education and enlightenment of the people, who accepted medical science.
Perhaps it was hardly advisable for me to take so much time in discussing this question, but I did wish to give this house and the country in general the important fundamental principle that behind all activity there must be that acceptance on the part of an educated rational minded public. I do not intend this afternoon to discuss state medicine, whatever that may be defined to mean, nor have I any intention of discussing at any considerable length health insurance. I presume that matter will come up for discussion in the future. But one thought must prevail in our minds, and it is that the improvement which has taken place from 1800 to the present time, and the advances that have been made in regard to all matters relating to health and medical science, have been mainly in connection with the prevention

Health Policy-Mr. Stanley
of disease. It is true that there have been some very great steps taken in a positive manner in connection with scientific medicine, and all credit is due those who have brought about those reforms and advances. At the same time, however, I think I can safely say that the measures which have been taken with regard to the prevention of disease have saved more lives, have made society healthier and have made citizens more capable and more efficient in their work than all the other measures of a positive nature of which I have been speaking.
One illustration comes to my mind at the moment. Florence Nightingale, with whose work everyone is familiar, by one series of activities was able, at the hospital at Scutari during the Crimean war, to accomplish one of the greatest saving of lives ever undertaken in any military hospital. When she arrived there with her little group of nurses there was a mortality rate of forty-two per cent among the soldiers. In a few weeks under the same field conditions the mortality was reduced to less than two per cent. What measures did she take? Did she have at her command any startling scientific discoveries? No; she simply used the ordinary measures of prevention, and those measures resulted in the reduction of mortality to which I have referred. One could take much time in giving illustrations of the saving of lives.
On the other hand of course scientific medicine has made great advances. I believe the casualties from typhoid fever during the South African war were greater than the casualties from other causes. Yet on the congested fields of France and Flanders deaths from this sickness were almost unknown. We are face to face with the acknowledged fact that preventive medicine has done a great work. So far as this and generations to come are concerned the future in the development of health preservation rests with preventive medicine. I would say the state is faced with its greatest problem, and to-day our chief concern must be to multiply activities in this line of endeavour.
In the provinces and municipalities year after year and decade after decade there has been a constant development of the prevention of disease by medical means. As we have made progress in medical science so have the municipalities, the provinces and the federal authorities advanced in the development of preventive medicine. I realize that to give curative treatment is the human feeling in everyone's breast, and I for one am prepared to say that so far as possible Canada should extend services to those who are disabled and who need medical assistance.
The resolution before us is in general terms; it simply asks that the federal government adopt a definite health policy which could be carried into operation with the help of the provincial legislatures. As it is worded the motion brings up for consideration the relationship which should exist between the federal Department of Health and the departments in the provinces. Last night the minister made a clear explanation as to what has been done and what measures have been taken heretofore. It is difficult to place in words the possibilities for cooperation, coordination and correlating of the activities of the provinces into a nation-wide policy. To do the job thoroughly is not in the opinion of those who are well informed on the subject a spectacular undertaking. It is a gradual, steady process, and is not one which can be bought with money. Such a development is possible only through the unselfish, harmonious and uniform undertaking and activity of those intimately associated with the problem.
For instance, any nation-wide health policy which would not recognize the medical man in his relation to the home as the key of the whole situation would be a failure before it was well started. There must be an activity which will coordinate the efforts of the medical man acting for the family with the efforts of the local or municipal hospitals, the larger urban hospitals and hospitals connected with the universities, the various departments of health, and the medical teaching of the universities.
Let us consider cancer as an illustration. The present hope in connection with this disease does not rest so much in the desire to give active treatment as in the discovery of cancers which in their early stages may be successfully treated. That can be done only through the most active cooperation of the people and the physicians living in the outlying districts as well as of those who live in the thickly populated urban centres. A national policy which would do something of a definite and tangible nature in regard to the disease of cancer would be one that would bring together all the available information on the subject. If we are to progress beyond the point we have now reached in regard to cancer in Canada it can be done only by a united effort, by bringing together every bit of available information that has been obtained through research and that may be used in attacking the disease.
The same is true of heart disease. One of the members speaking yesterday, I think it was the minister himself, mentioned that problem. Heart disease is increasing by leaps
20S

Health Policy-Mr. Stanley
and bounds. Heart disease is a very general term, of course, but I think I am perfectly safe in saying that the reason for this rapid increase is that heart disease is not properly understood. We have no national machinery that will enable us to make use of the information which is in the possession of the medical men of our country both in the outlying districts as well as in the more populated centres, and progress in the prevention and treatment of a disease of that nature can be made only when all the available information is brought together and coordinated in order that the disease as a whole may be attacked with the full resources of medical science by those in charge of the health activities of our country.
In the few moments left to me before six o'clock I should like to say a word or two in regard to health insurance. Some of the provinces, at least British Columbia and Alberta, have already made a careful investigation of this problem of health insurance. A competent committee of the Canadian Medical Association, to which the minister referred last night, also investigated the possibilities of the application of health insurance in the provinces. Frequently we see the picture painted that legislation adopting health insurance means that immediately the most up to date and widely recognized medical services will be extended on an equal basis to all the people. That, Mr. Speaker, is the ideal, an ideal which I hope some day will be attained. But there are difficulties to be faced and there is a long road to travel before we attain that ideal.
There are one or two principles which need to be emphasized in any health insurance plan, whether federal, provincial, or of any other kind. The first is this, that the patient or the family must have the choice of their own physician. If that relationship of which I spoke earlier in my remarks is broken; if the family physician is taken away and replaced by an outsider without the consent of the patient, you remove one of the greatest factors in the successful treatment of people for disease. It is not my purpose to discuss that psychological factor, the psychical element which enters into it; but make no mistake about it, that principle must be set down as fundamental to the success of any health insurance scheme, or indeed of any scheme which undertakes to extend medical or health services to the public.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 5.59 p.m.
Monday, January 28, 1935