1935-01-24

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. YENIOT;
1.	Were instructions issued by the Department of National Revenue in connection with the disposal of the vessel Paul T seized for infraction of customs regulations; if so, what were such instructions?
2.	Were instructions issued by the said department for the disposal of liquors seized on board such vessel; if so, what were such instructions?
3.	Were instructions issued by the Department of National Revenue for the disposal of the stores found on board' the Paul T; if so, what were the instructions?
Mr. MATTHEWS:: 1.	Yes, to destroy the vessel.
2.	Yes, to destroy the liquor.
3.	Vessel, cargo and stores had been forfeited to crown in right of the province and merely transferred to Department of National Revenue for disposal. Instructions were given for destruction of vessel and cargo without particularly mentioning stores.

Empire Defence Plan


CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT APPLICATIONS
Mr. GIROUARD:: 1.	How many applications for loans, under tlie Farm Loan Act, were made by farmers in the province of Quebec during the years 1932, 1933, and' 1934?
2.	How many of such applications were granted during each of the said years?
3.	How many applications were refused during each of the said years?
4.	What was the total amount of the loans asked during each of the years 1932, 1933, and 1934?
5.	What was the total amount of loans granted during each of the said years?


Mr. RHODES:: Answers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
		Number of		
			Applica-	
		(*)	tions	
Amount of	Number	with-	AmountApplications	Loans	of	drawn or	offor Loan	Applied	Loans	Rejected	LoansReceived	for	Granted	(*)	GrantedFiscal year ended March 31, 1932.. 2,703	87,829,933	425	2,507	$855,000Fiscal year ended March 31, 1933.. 1,018	2,413,935	237	865	438,200Fiscal year ended March 31, 1934.. 779	1,541,711	140	645	222,900
(*)Figures for each year under this heading include applications carried over from previous fiscal year and dealt with during the fiscal year.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POWER:: 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?


Mr. CAHAN:: Return tabled herewith.


SILVER AND GOLD PRODUCTION
Mr. REID:: 1.	What amounts of silver have been purchased by the government of Canada since April 1. 1934, and (a) what price per ounce was paid for the silver purchased; (b) from whom were the various quantities, it any, purchased?
2.	What was the total output of gold in 1934?
3.	What was the total revenue received by the government in 1934 under the gold tax of 1934?
4.	What was the average value per ounce of gold produced in Canada during 1934?
5.	Were any licences issued for the exportation of gold?
6.	If so: (a) to whom; (b) what was the total amount exported; (c) to what countries were the various amounts exported?
7.	Did the dominion government purchase any gold in 1934: if so. what quantities were purchased and what was the price per ounce paid?


EMPIRE DEFENCE PLAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: On Monday
I asked the Prime Minister a question with regard to an article that had appeared in an English newspaper in reference to an empire defence plan and the right hon. gentleman replied to the effect that it was a question that ordinarily ought to have been placed on the order paper in order that time might be given to look into it. He gave a definite answer with regard to the article itself but did not answer at the time, and] I imagine was not in a position to. do so, the specific question I asked, which was:
Was the recent visit of Sir Maurice Hankey to Canada made the occasion of a discussion or consideration of any plan of empire defence by any member of the government, or by any official or officials of the government, acting under the authority of any minister of the crown ?
The Prime Minister said that he would examine the situation in detail to see whether any further reply should be made than that which he gave. May I say to him that I shall be glad to put the inquiry in the form of a question on the order paper if he prefers to have further time for consideration before giving an answer. If, however, he is prepared to give a definite reply with respect to my question, and the implications conveyed by the article to which I referred that would be more satisfactory.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: As I indicated, I had no notice
of the question, but I felt that it was one that should be answered immediately in order that no wrong impressions might be given to the people of Canada. The answer to the question as put is, no. I know of no conversations with respect to empire defence,
Empire Defence Plan

in the sense in which I assume that term is used, which were carried on by Sir Maurice Hankey with any officer or officers of any of the departments, with the authority of the government, or with anyone else, so far as I know, except, as I found on inquiry, that Sir Maurice Hankey did see the chief of the general staff, saw the camps at Roekcliffe, and matters of that sort. I think he called on the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs and sat with him for an hour, and I believe he accepted the hospitality of the right hon. gentleman opposite. He had many conversations with friends whom he had met in previous years, and I had a few words of conversation with him-not an extensive conversation-and certainly there was no discussion of empire defence in any sense, as far as I know. Nor was any such discussion authorized by the government on the part of any official or officials of the departments in Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice that
the Prime Minister in his reply says, "So far as I know." Perhaps he will not object if I put on the order paper a question which would specifically cover the knowledge of other ministers. It is quite true that when Sir Maurice Hankey was here some of us had the pleasure of renewing old friendships with him and conversing with him, and I am happy to have been one of the number; but apart from these personal relationships, there is a general impression that matters pertaining to defence were discussed by officials of the department of National Defence with Sir Maurice when he was here. On that point I should like to get exact information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is the proper course and the one which the right hon. gentleman should have followed at the beginning instead of asking without notice a question of that character. I think he will agree that if he were Prime Minister he would not care to have a question of that kind asked without notice, with the obvious implications which it carries and in view of the effect it is calculated to have on certain people in the community who have strong views. Now, I did make inquiries, and I repeat that while Sir Maurice Hankey did discuss everything connected with our own country, asked questions, and carried on a general conversation that had no official character, so far as I know, with various people whom he met, he did not discuss with nor was any official authorized to carry on with him any conversation other than the ordinary conversation which one would expect to take place between

a man of Sir Maurice Hankey's experience and attainments and any person whom he might meet in any of the services of Canada and whom he had previously known.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In view of
what the Prime Minister says, I will not place any question on the order paper; I shall accept the statement he has made.


MARKETING OF POTATOES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. B. F. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: I
wish to direct two questions to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). First, in view of the depressed condition of the potato industry in the maritime provinces, and in fact throughout the whole of Canada, what steps have been taken, if any, by the Department of Agriculture or the Dominion Marketing Board ,to explore possible outside markets? Secondly, what progress is being made toward the formation of a potato marketing board covering the five eastern provinces of Canada?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: The hon. member notified me that
he would ask these questions. A committee has been set up under the eastern Canada potato marketing scheme to explore the possibility of any further markets and also to investigate the question as to what additional use might be made in different ways of the by-products of potatoes. A board has been created with jurisdiction in the three maritime provinces and also in Ontario.


Mr. MARGIL:: Can the minister give any information with regard to Quebec?


Robert Weir: The province of Quebec had the matter under consideration for some time and it was thought that they would go into it, but finally they decided not to do so.


Charles Marcil: Can the minister give the names of the members of the committee?


Robert Weir: I shall be glad to do so.


HORNBY SETTLEMENT PLAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: Will the Minister of Immigration lay on the table of the house copies of the schemes for local settlement under the Hornby plan in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?

Business of the House-Precedence


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: The minister is not in the house
at the moment; the question will be drawn to his attention.


RICHELIEU 'CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lam'bton):: I have a question which I should like the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) to answer. The question arises out of an item that appeared in the Toronto Globe of Tuesday, January 22, from London, Ontario, under the heading:
Federal subsidy given Richelieu Co., accountant says
Evidence in cattle fraud charges open at London
The paragraph to which I direct attention particularly reads:
Subsidy of $7,392 to outfit a cattle ship was paid by the Bennett government to the Richelieu Corporation, now defunct, at a time when the company's finances allegedly were in jeopardy and the corporation was in debt to Ontario farmers for cattle, declared Charles Sears, chartered accountant, in evidence here to-day at the preliminary trial of three ex-officials of the company on fraud charges.
The question I want to ask is this: Is the sum of $7,392, mentioned in the article, in addition to the $13,000 that was admitted to have been paid by the government, by the former Minister of Trade and Commerce, when this matter was under discussion last year? If so, at what stage of the company's life was the sum mentioned paid?


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: This question is one which properly speaking should have been placed on the order paper, but as the hon. gentleman was courteous enough to give me notice of it, I desire to give him an immediate reply. The answer to the first is in the negative; the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, with this limitation, that the investigation into the company's status was made prior to the payment.


CANADIAN SILVER DOLLAR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Can the Minister of Finance tell us when we may expect the new Canadian silver dollar to be ready?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is anticipated that the new silver dollar will be ready and widely distributed on the 6th of May, the anniversary which it is intended to commemorate.


Mr. McINTOSH:: That will be the election date,


BANK OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Marcil: When will the government announce the appointment of the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As soon the bank is in a position to function.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I note that public bills and orders to-day precede notices of motions. Is it not usual on Thursday, for the first four weeks of the session, for private members' motions to be taken? Personally I should like very much to have the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) given an opportunity to go on, but it is not in keeping with the regular practice.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Might I point out to the hon. member that the first motion coming under public bills and orders is a public order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is quite true, but that does not altogether accord with the regular procedure, I think, because the first motion is in reality the continuance of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the practice is that which has prevailed in this house for many years. The motion of the hon. member for Dufferin-Sim-coe (Mr. Rowe) has now become a public order and appears on the order paper in accordance with the statements contained in the rules of the house as to the business to be taken up on each particular day. The hon. member will recall that the order is not the same each day nor the same each day for private members and the course pursued in making up the order paper is exactly the course indicated in the rules we have followed for many years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us agree to the address and then we can go on with the order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) will refer to standing order 15 he will find that
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

the order of business is given for the first four: weeks of the session and the order paper is prepared pursuant to that rule according to which on Thursdays public bills and orders come before notices of motion.



STATEMENT BY MR. SPEAKER RELATING TO PRACTICE FOLLOWED IN PLACING QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['My right hon. friend\nwill remember that last session I brought in the motion before the address was adopted. Probably that is what he has in mind.']
Pierre Édouard Blondin: With the permission of the house, I intended when questions were being submitted, to make a statement in connection with a point of order raised yesterday by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger), and I should like to make a short statement in that connection.
The hon. member for Bellechasse on a question of privilege yesterday brought to the attention of the house certain matters relating to the practice followed in placing questions on the order paper. I have not as yet had an opportunity of giving full consideration to the statements made by the hon. member. With the approval of the house I shall at the next sitting of the house make a statement in connection with the points raised.
Before the debate on the address is proceeded with, may I make another observation? I would just remind hon. members of the acoustic qualities of this chamber. When an hon. member is speaking, will he bear that in mind so that others in all corners of the house may hear him.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, January 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. E. Rowe for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: 
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended taking part in this debate, but there are one or two points on which I should like to make a few remarks, so I shall take this opportunity of doing so. I notice that the following words have been put in the mouth of His Excellency, in the speech from the throne:
In the anxious years through which you have passed, you have been the witnesses of grave defects and abuses in the capitalist system.
Certainly this is a great admission and one which we are very glad to see, because we have claimed that the system has been defective for a great many years. Further on in the speech from the throne 1 find these words:
These require modifications in the capitalist system to enable that system more effectively to serve the people.
I was delighted, in reading one of the Prime Minister's radio speeches, to find that he made the statement that the system was made for man, not man for the system. Up to the present time-and this has been very true, as the last speaker stated-the people have suffered a great deal at the hands of the system because a real effort was being made to make that system work even though it might be at the expense of the public. Therefore it is a great step in the right direction, it seems to me, to have the Prime Minister of this country publicly admit, both outside and inside this house, that the system under which we are working is not satisfactory, and that it must be altered in the interests of the public at large.
In the speech from the throne reference was made to the Natural Products Marketing Act. I am not going to deal with that measure beyond saying a few words, because that matter was thoroughly dealt with a short time ago by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman). I do want to say, however, that I think this is one of the most constructive acts ever brought before this house, and I believe that the more it is understood in the country, and the more we are able to make proper use of it, the more we will realize the value of that legislation, and the more we will come to believe that

The Address-Mr. Spencer
when it was passed a year ago a very great step was taken in the right direction.
Reference was also made to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and I rose particularly to say a few words with regard to that legislation. I think that measure, which was designed to enable the farmers in particular to get out from underneath a certain amount of their load of debt, because of the impossibility of the farming population carrying on under the load they are now attempting to carry, was very badly needed. The machinery set up makes it possible for the debtors and creditors to come together to find ways and means of reducing the total amount of the debt owing. It was surmised and hoped that the creditors would meet the debtors and reduce the sum total of debts to a figure which would enable the farmer to carry on his wrork and retain his home. When the debts were cut down to that figure it was presumed that the farmer then would be on a sound financial footing and would be able to get financed by the farm loan board so that he could pay off his creditors.
If the act had worked out in that way I think we would have done a very fine piece of work, but we find that in some provinces -I do not say all-the farm loan boards do not see their way clear to advance the money to the debtors which would enable them to pay off their creditors. In those circumstances it does not matter in what position the debtor farmer is left, at the will of the creditors, if the farm loan board refuses to allow him to make use of its facilities. In such cases this measure will not be the success we hoped. In certain provinces we find that those in charge of the administration of the farm loan boards have taken the very definite stand that they are not going to be very enthusiastic in trying to make that act work in order to meet the needs of the debtors, even after the debts have been cut down considerably. In that case it means that the debts have not been cut down sufficiently. If the farm loan boards cooperate there are great possibilities in this legislation, and with the power given the Minister of Finance a year ago to buy upwards of $40,000,000 of farm loan bonds, a very serious situation with regard to agriculture can be readily met.
The speech from the throne further goes on to speak of the Bank of Canada as an instrument of national policy to direct the better utilization of the credit resources of Canada. I do hope that this is not what we might term lip service, because here there is a chance to make the greatest possible use of our national credit. I hope there will be no hesi-92582-10
tation in doing so. In the speech from the throne we find advocated many measures in the way of reform. There is no doubt that if these reforms are brought about they will entail considerable expenditure. I do hope that the necessary money will not be collected from taxation, except to the extent that the very large incomes may be more heavily taxed; I hope the fullest use may be made of the national credit in order that these reforms may be carried out.
It is suggested that better provision should be made to protect the worker from unemployment, and in sickness and old age. This has been advocated from this corner of the house for a number of years, and I am delighted to see it in the speech from the throne. It has occurred to me, as it must have occurred to all hon. members of this house in the last few years, that it has been strange to find so many old men still hanging on to their jobs, perhaps because they are not seventy years of age or because they have not been in the country long enough to become entitled to the very small old age pension we now give our old people. In those circumstances they have refused to give up their jobs, because they would be put on the dole. As a result we find our younger population out of work in very large numbers, and we have had to open camps all across Canada to take care of these able, virile and in some cases well educated young men. It does seem to me that we are doing something entirely wrong in keeping the old men at work while we put these young, healthy men into camps. If this statement in the speech from the throne means anything I certainly hope it means that we are going to alter that state of affairs in order to give men, say over sixty, an opportunity to take things a little easier through an old age pension, and at the same time give the young men of the country an opportunity to find work.
According to the speech from the throne a survey is to be made of the national debt structure. I am very glad to see this statement. The house will remember that last year we in this part of the house introduced a resolution along this very line. So we are glad to find this statement in the speech from the throne, for it makes us believe that something is really going to be done in this respect.
I notice in the speech from the throne that there will be an extension of the facilities for long term and intermediate credits. I sincerely hope something will be done to make the farm loan board more operative and give

The Address-Mr. Spencer

better service than it is giving at the present time. The reference to minimum wages and a maximum working week is I believe a step in the right direction. Hon. members to my right will correct me if I am wrong when I state that that was one plank in the Liberal platform of 1919. I had the privilege of sitting in this house for nine years when that party happened to be in power, yet we do not find any mention of this legislation until the year 1935. I trust nothing will hinder the passage of any legislation along these lines.
A further statement in the speech from the throne refers to necessary alterations in the incidence of taxation so that it will more directly conform to capacity to pay. That is a move in the right direction. I am reminded of the budgets brought to this house in the years 1927 and 1928 when we found that the government of that day decided to decrease the income tax on large incomes a procedure which I have always thought was a distinct mistake. In good times, when money is plentiful and business is brisk we should keep up our taxation so that we may put something by for a rainy day, that is create a sinking fund. It is much easier to collect extra money in good times than to collect it 'when times are bad and cash is scarce.
Turning again to the speech from the throne I find there are to be safeguards for the consumer and primary producer against unfair trading practices. When he grows stock or grain the farmer finds himself in the position of a producer. We know only too well about the miserably low prices he has had to accept for his farm produce in the past few years. On the other hand we find he is in the position of a consumer when he must buy his repairs, machinery or binder twine. He is a consumer when he has to buy food, and particularly that food which although originally from the farm has been processed in a factory and is returned to him at a very greatly enhanced price. I am quite certain those people living on the farms will view with a great deal of interest this particular clause in the speech from the throne because they stand to benefit not only as producers but as consumers, if the legislation introduced reflects the spirit we hope will be manifested.
We find in the speech from the throne that we will be invited to enact measures to regulate, in the public interest, concentrations in production and distribution. No doubt some legislation of that sort will be introduced when we receive the report from the price spreads commission. At the present moment rMr. Spencer.]
I am not going to make special reference to that commission because I hope we shall have plenty of opportunity at a later time to discuss the work it has been doing and the findings it has made.
We find further we will be invited to enact measures to provide the investing public with means to protect itself against exploitation. This I believe has particular reference to watered stock. I shall simply remind the house that not only during the life of the last government but in the early years this government held office the matter of watered stock was discussed by hon. members sitting in this corner of the house with the object of reform but nothing was done at either time. Although such action is late I am pleased the government has placed in the speech of His Excellency a statement intimating that they are going to attempt to solve the problem.
Turning again to the speech from the throne we find there will be introduced a reform in our penitentiaries system, and that consideration is being given to the Borstal system. I have no doubt the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and other hon. members who for many years past have recommended reforms in our penitentiaries will appreciate this clause, despite the fact reforms are overdue. We shall watch with a great deal of interest the legislation which will be introduced by the government, and will be pleased to learn how far they intend to go in their reform program.
It gives me pleasure to note that there is to be a reorganization in the government service. Whether or not we happen to agree with many of the Prime Minister's policies we have to give him credit for making very necessary and worth while changes in the Department of Finance during the time he was minister of that department. I am quite sure no one could be better qualified to take the initiative in a reorganization of our whole civil service than is the present Prime Minister of Canada. I note further in the speech from the throne that an economic council will be set up to advise the ministers upon all economic questions concerning our national welfare. Here again I am pleased to welcome the suggestion, one which has been made at least twice from this corner of the house. Upon each occasion it was recommended on our behalf by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman).
Hon. members in this part of the chamber are not greatly interested in what political party places legislation on the statute books; we are far more interested in seeing legis-

The Address-Mr. Heaps
lation placed there. If the present government is prepared to place upon our statute books the legislation mentioned in the speech from the throne I am quite sure it will receive the fullest support from hon. members in this corner of the house on any legislation we have suggested in the past. People have been looking for some action, and I am not going to blame the Prime Minister if some think he has made a volte face. If he is doing something worth while or constructive he should not be criticized. Very often a change is a sign of progress. I agrei with the hon. member who preceded me that many of the suggestions are salve; I am ready to admit that. At the same time it is better that a doctor should recognize the sickness of his patients and be prepared to administer a salve and follow with a real remedy than not to recognize the sickness at all. The present government apparently recognizes that the nation is sick and it is prepared to take some action. If in the nine years it held office the late government had had the courage to come forward with these reforms I would have paid it the same compliment and would have given it the same hearty support as I shall give the present government on the reforms suggested in the speech from the throne.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few observations I wish to make at this time. I wish particularly to address myself to certain questions that were raised by the Prime Minister in his radio addresses and in the speech from the throne to which I have given a good deal of attention during the years I have been a member of this house.
The present session reminds me somewhat of the session of 1926. I think those hon. members who were members of the house at that time will bear in mind the legislation that was passed during that memorable session, and one of the pieces of legislation which made such a lasting impression on the country was the old age pension act. We got the old age pension act through parliament during that session and it became the law a year or so subsequent. To-day there must be approximately 40,000 people throughout the Dominion of Canada who are receiving the benefits of that legislation. I said that there was some similarity between that session and this session of 1935. In 1926 the government was not a very stable government; they had a very small majority in this house, and it appears now that the present government is not very stable. It appears further that about the only time that we can expect to have enacted social legislation 92582-1(U
that is worth while is when we have not a stable government in power; and there, Mr. Speaker, is the similarity between the two sessions.
Now on the eve of an election we are to be favoured, and I am very pleased to see it, with some social legislation which I hope will confer equal benefits and advantages upon the people of Canada as did the old age pension act of 1926.
It has been suggested by the Prime Minister and those associated with him that there is going to be a series of drastic reforms in the economic structure of this dominion. The fact that these proposals have been made, that these reforms have been suggested to parliament and the country, is in the first place, in my humble opinion, a clear admission that the policies pursued by the government for the past four years have been a failure so far as relieving the economic conditions that have prevailed in this dominion. It is an admission that high tariffs have not proven a remedy for the evils from which we are suffering, that the dumping laws have been no remedy, that the public works that have been inaugurated to relieve unemployment and the dole which has been given to millions of our people have not proven a remedy for the economic ills of this dominion.
But there is this one thing at least that I am thankful for to the Prime Minister, and that is that he has brought a reality into the situation that was formerly lacking in all the public discussions throughout Canada. Now it appears that the problem of employment and the problem of unemployment are about to become the paramount issues. I am very glad that such is the case, for during the past nine or ten years that I have been a member of this house, year in and year out I have brought to the attention of parliament proposals in the nature of reforms and various suggestions that have been made by the small group of which I happen to be a member and which received at that time only scant consideration. If time will permit I hope to put on the records of this house some of those proposals.
The government's new proposals include unemployment insurance, insurance against sickness and invalidity, and insurance against old age. They promise to bring in legislation to regulate the hours of labour and also wages. There are also to be a number of relief works instituted in various parts of the dominion. But at the very best, Mr. Speaker, relief works and the dole are only temporary in their character, and if we are to deal fund-
The Address-Mr. Heaps

amentally with this problem of unemployment we have to go far beyond merely providing relief works for those who happen to be out of work.
The other day the Prime Minister made reference to a loan of 5100,000,000 which he had obtained in the United States in the year 1930 for the purpose of giving relief to the unemployed of this country, and for the purpose of carrying on public relief projects. I had no objection at that time, in the short session of 1930, to the Prime Minister going to New York, and if I remember correctly to the firm of Morgan and Company and obtaining this loan for the dominion, but it did *seem to me an anomalous procedure, and I -would not have referred to it to-day except that the Prime Minister brought it to the attention of the house in his speech during this debate.
That money was required to give to the men and women who were out of work in this country sustenance and relief. A portion of that money was earmarked for what has been termed the dole, to provide food, clothing and shelter to the men, women and children of Canada who at that time most unfortunately were without these necessities. It seemed so ridiculous to me because we had food, clothing and shelter in this country in abundance. Out on the prairies we had more wheat and more food than we knew what to do with. Our warehouses were full of clothing, and our carpenters and builders were walking the streets anxious to construct homes for the people to live in, and yet Mr. Speaker, before our people, before the great masses who were out of work and hungry in this country could eat the foodstuffs which they themselves had produced, they had to get permission from Morgan and Company in the city of New York. If you can show me a more anomalous and ridiculous situation than for us to have to go to a foreign country to get permission to eat the foodstuffs which we ourselves have produced, and are not allowed to consume I would like to know where you could possibly find it.
It has become quite a common and almost a fashionable thing during the past few months to condemn the capitalist system. This afternoon I am not going to condemn capitalists. I have condemned the system quite long enough now. The Prime Minister in his addresses has spoken on more than one occasion of the defects of the capitalist system, and I have been very anxious to hear him speak more particularly on what in his opinion were the defects in the system and what exactly would be done to relieve the

situation. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that we can get rid of unemployment and the evils of unemployment within the confines of the capitalist structure.
May I here refer for a few moments to what they have 'been doing in the United States during the last couple of years. There they had a vast army of unemployed, the same as we have had here, and for a period of two years they have been- pumping into the economic structure of that country approximately thirty billions of dollars-a staggering sum of money which the average human mind can hardly realize. And yet in spite of the fact that they have pumped into the economic life of that country thirty billions of dollars, conditions in the United States are hardly any better to-day than they were two or three years ago. There must be a reason for that. If the pumping of so much money into their economic structure can have so little effect, then naturally one is impelled to ask:	Why is it that in spite of all these
efforts that have been made in the United States there still persists this unemployment problem which as yet they have hardly touched? Here may I say that in discussing this question in this house a year or so agio I made observations to this effect: I said that what they are trying to do in the United States is to create a cooperative structure within the confines of the competitive capitalist structure, and I said that it was impossible to have a structure which was at one and the same time both competitive and cooperative. I claimed that sooner or later one must give way to the other, and much sooner than one might have expected the cooperative efforts of the government of the United States have given way to the competitive system, and probably within a comparatively short time we shall find the United States proceeding on completely different lines in a further attempt to solve the unemployment conditions that prevail to the south of the line. Therefore, if there has been no basic improvement in conditions to the south of the line as a result of the spending of the vast sums of money to which I have referred, it means that if we in this country are to end or even to alleviate unemployment we shall have to look in some other direction than that which has been followed in the United States. At all times we have looked in the direction of creating more work to provide more employment. I submit that our first and basic consideration should be to provide not more work but more consumption of goods among the people of Canada. There is to-day no lack of productive capacity if the

The Address-Mr. Heaps
people were given an opportunity to consume; but there is that great lack of consumptive opportunity amongst the great masses of our people. We have found during the past few years that there has been a wide spread between actual production and actual consumption, and unless we can get a reasonable balance between consumption and production then we shall continue to have unemployment and poverty on our hands and in our midst just as we have at the present time.
As a member of the labour group in this house, I say that we are strongly opposed, bitterly opposed, to the curtailment of production. And we have opposed it from the very first. I well remember that when the Minister of Finance was over in Europe a year or two ago he spoke about the people there consuming more of our wheat, and this expression I lauded. But why reserve that increased consumption for the people of Europe? What about our own people in Canada? Have they no prior consideration to our own production in the dominion? Why should they not be entitled to consume more than they have the opportunity of doing at present? I submit that our whole effort should be to increase the consumptive opportunities of the people of Canada; or, to put it another way, there must be a more equitable distribution of the wealth produced in Canada than there has been up to the present time.
The plans, either of this or of any future government, if the economic situation is to be relieved, should be considered from this particular angle, because I hold that it is only as we increase the actual consumption of goods by the people of the country that we shall make any impression upon the economic distress now prevalent. Unemployment is inherent in the capitalistic system. I want to see unemployment and all that it implies in the way of poverty and so forth entirely eliminated. But if we cannot have it eliminated immediately I am prepared to do all I can as a member of this house to alleviate and mitigate conditions with the ultimate objective of completely eliminating unemployment from our midst.
Now what the average citizen of Canada is looking for is some security in life. This he has not at the present time. The million or so -who to-day are on relief have no security and very little hope for the future. The other day the Prime Minister gave the house some figures in reference to the unemployment situation. He claimed that between 1932 and the present time, from a peak of 750,000 those out of work had decreased to
approximately 400,000; I do not know very much about these figures and I have not had time to examine them, but I presume they have been prepared by competent statisticians. I do know however that in the large industrial centres where unemployment is prevalent, where there are so many people on relief and where the relief figures bear eloquent testimony to the unemployment situation as it exists in most of those large centres, the decrease in the number on relief is approximately 10 per cent. If this is the case there must certainly be a most serious problem confronting us at the present time.
When I look at the government's proposals I want to see how they fit in with some of the suggestions I have made. How would they give the average Canadian more security in life than he has to-day? How would they give him a better standard of living than he now enjoys? How would they give the man or woman out of work an opportunity to obtain a livelihood and work?
Coming to unemployment insurance, I may point out that this is a matter to which I have directed the attention of the houses for the past nine years as the records of Hansard will show. To my way of thinking, unemployment insurance is a very desirable objective. It is a proposal which I will support provided the bill meets the essentials of what I should regard as a comprehensive scheme of unemployment insurance in this dominion. But to-day we have reached a stage in the economic life of this country where any scheme of unemployment insurance if it is on a contributory basis will take care, not of those who are out of work at the present time-they will be left alone-but of those who are to-day employed and who may a year or two hence find themselves out of work. If therefore we deal with the unemployment insurance problem any measure such as that is not going to alleviate the immediate distress among our Canadian citizens who are at present out of work.
With regard to sickness and invalidity, any bill which is brought in and which will ensure against these evils will without the slightest doubt receive my unhesitating support. But there is a question which I must ask with regard to old age pensions. It has been foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in somewhat ambiguous terms that he is going to bring into being a system of contributory old age pensions. I say his language is rather ambiguous because I hardly understand what he means when he .speaks of a contributory system of old age pensions. If he implies that he is going to place on a contributory basis
i50
The Address-Mr. Heaps

the pension system which is now in effect in Canada, then I will strongly oppose any bill of that kind. Any pension which is received under the provisions of the act of 1926 is given as a right: in fact, in my opinion, it is more of a right than the pensions given generals, judges and officials of the government. But if the Prime Minister's statement implies that he is going to follow in effect the system in Great Britain, then I am prepared to give it the sympathetic consideration which such a proposal naturally deserves. For in Great Britain there is a dual system of old age pensions. Between the ages of 65 and 70 it is on a contributory basis; after 70 the entire cost of the pension becomes a responsibility of the government. If there is going to be a contributory old age pension in Canada, I do hope the first thing the Prime Minister will do will be to bring down the age level of those who are entitled to its Benefits and thereby perhaps help somewhat to relieve a congested labour market.
I now come to minimum wage laws and a maximum work week. I attach more importance to a minimum wage law and a maximum work week than I do to the proposed measure dealing with unemployment insurance. I attach far more importance to that aspect of his proposed legislation than I do to anything else appearing in the speech from the throne, for if the Prime Minister or the government wills and parliament wills, by establishing a low maximum working week and a high minimum wage, he can do more to relieve the unemployment situation than anything else he has done during the whole time he has been in office. The time has come when there should be a complete revision of our maximum working week and minimum wage laws. Our minimum wage laws are altogether too low and our working week is altogether too high. If we are ever going to absorb the masses of our unemployed into the productive life of this country, this can be done only by a restriction of the hours of labour. I know there are many hon. members, possibly on both sides of the house, who have a strong objection to both minimum wage laws and a maximum work week. Well, those laws have been in effect in this country for quite a number of years, but I believe by attempting to put a national law into effect, one that will be the same in all the provinces as regards both wages and a maximum work week, we can go a long way towards doing something for those who at the present time are unemployed. I know it will be said that this will have the effect of increasing price levels. I know it will also be said that it is

pretty hard to do all these things within the confines of the existing economic structure. I realize such a law, that is for a maximum work week and a minimum wage, may have the effect of cutting very deeply into the profits of many of our corporations, but if I have to choose between the profits of our corporations and providing for the well-being of the masses of our people, I am going to be on the side of the masses. As I said before, the spread between wages, which in many ways means consumption, and production must be reduced, and one of the few ways by which we can reduce that spread is by insisting on and maintaining a high minimum wage level in our industrial life.
I come now to another point in the discussion concerning the problems with which I have just dealt: I come to the question of the attitude of the provinces. I know some of our provinces are very jealous of their rights. I am not going to blame any of them for that jealousy, but I think there comes a time in (the life of possibly all of us when something of great importance must transcend our own personal interest. So now in the life of the Dominion of Canada there has come a time when the enactment of legislation as foreshadowed by the government must take precedence over certain of the rights of the provinces. It has been realized time and time again that as regards the questions of minimum wage laws, maximum working week, unemployment insurance and so on, there must be in the dominion a centralized authority, because without such an authority we could have no successful scheme in operation of any of these laws. Instead of there being opposition from the provinces at this juncture, I hope every one of the nine provinces will attempt to cooperate with parliament and the government, however one cares to put it, so that there may be brought into effect in the dominion something that will be of lasting benefit to our people. The common weal of the Canadian people at this time transcends in importance some of the constitutional issues that may be raised by those who are not in favour of this form of legislation and who no doubt will be opposed to it. No province can isolate itself from the rest of the dominion any more than the dominion can isolate itself from the other nations of the world. So I sincerely hope the provinces will join the central authority, namely, the federal parliament, in its corporate capacity to bring about legislation that will at least leave, as I said before, a lasting impression on the social [DOT]and economic life of the dominion.

The Address-Mr. Heaps
I said previously a word or two in regard to the efforts that have been made by hon. members in this -corner of the house to further social legislation. I am glad to see that after all these thirteen years of effort by various members of the independent groups we have at last reached a stage where the feeling is practically unanimous that legislation along the lines we have suggested should be put upon -the statute books. I hope when the legislation comes before the house none of us will be disappointed. I accept the assurances of the government that the legislation will be of such a character that it will accomplish something worth while.
May I now go back to give a brief synopsis of the situation. In 1919, after the war, when there was a great deal of unrest in the dominion, the then -government appointed a commission to inquire into industrial unrest and it was asked to make as speedy a report as possible on many of the problems of that day. That commission reported that among other matters, industrial unrest was caused by unemployment -a-nd the fear of unemployment. In other words, they felt that unemployment and the fear of unemployment caused amongst the workers a sense of insecurity and this was more the cause of unreat than anything else they were able to ascertain during the period of investigation. So they recommended another committee to investigate the whole question of unemployment, sickness and invalidity insurance with a view to early legislation and with, of course the federal government acting in the matter.
A few months later at a convention of the Liberal party, they embodied the proposals of this royal commission in one of the planks of their platform. If I may read the exact plank of the platform of the party, it is as follows:
That in so far as may be practicable having regard for Canada's financial position an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence in old age and other disabilities which will include old age pensions and maternity benefits should be instituted by the federal government, in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces, and that on matters pertaining to industrial and social legislation an effort should be made to overcome any question of jurisdiction between the dominion and provinces by effective cooperation between the several provinces.
Now let me turn from this plank in the Liberal platform of 1919 and jump to the Conservative platform of 1927, adopted at the convention held in Winnipeg in the fall of that year. The following resolution under the heading Capital and Labour was adopted and inserted in its platform:
So far as is practicable to support social legislation to design and conserve human life, health and temperance, to relieve distress during periods of unemployment, sickness and old age.
It will be observed that there is a good deal in common between what the Conservative party proposed in 1927 and what the Liberal party proposed in 1919.
Then I come to the parliamentary session of 1926. There we find in the records of the house some of the earliest efforts made to get social legislation enacted by parliament. On January 7, 1926, my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) wrote certain communications to the then leader of the house, now the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to the then leader of the opposition now the leader of the government in the Senate Mr. Meighen. These communications have been put on the records of the house so often that I shall not weary the house with them at the present time, and will just say that we received communications in reply from both the leaders. From the then leader of t-he opposition, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, we received replies most evasive and unsatisfactory in regard to unemployment insurance and old age pensions, but we received from the then Prime Minister, now the leader of the opposition, a reply more definite and satisfactory; and as a result no doubt of our efforts during that period we had legislation introduced in 1926 which subsequently became law. I am informed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that the number of old age pensioners in Canada to-day is approximately 87,000. I had put the figure at 40,000. I am glad of the correction; it goes to show how beneficial that legislation was and how worthwhile were the efforts of my hon. colleague for Winnipeg North Centre and myself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt, but is it not a fact that two years before the communications to which the hon. member refers were written the house had already appointed a committee at the instance of the Liberal government of the day to inquire into the question of old age pensions and to study the question of jurisdiction and report upon it?


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is true, but that report was never adopted by the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the old age pension legislation was a direct outcome of it.
The Address-Mr. Heaps


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, as I said at the outset
when the right hon. gentleman was not present, we get this good legislation when we have not got stable government. If we had a stable government in power now we might have had an election a year ago and might have been spared the legislation now proposed. That is a surmise, but I feel that when parties in the house are nearly balanced and the government is not certain of its tenure of office we are more likely to get something for the benefit of the country than when we have stable government.


Mr. MUNN:: Is it not true that old age pension legislation was enacted by the provincial government of British Columbia years before it was put into effect in this house?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, I think the provincial
government of British Columbia was the first to take advantage of the legislation passed in this house. But it was not effective there before the act was passed in this parliament. However, I am not going to quarrel over that aspect of the question.
On March 15, 1926, my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre moved in this house the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, a wage sufficient to provide for a reasonable standard of living should' constitute a legal minimum wage.
I am glad to say the whole house consented to it, but of course we have had no definite action until now.


Albert Edward Munn: We had in British Columbia.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am speaking of the federal government. I know that British Columbia is a remarkable province, has a remarkable contingent in this house and some remarkable legislation.
On Wednesday, March 16, 1927, the following resolution was introduced in the house by myself:
That, in the opinion of this house, the committee on industrial and international relations be instructed to investigate and report on the establishment of a system of insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity.
This motion was talked out on that occasion, on a Wednesday afternoon, which I remember very well and about which the less I say the better.
In the following year, on February 16, 1928,
I again introduced the same resolution word for word, but the government of the day, now the opposition, accepted the motion and it was referred to the committee on industrial and international relations. For the rest

of the session of 1928 and the session of 1929 the matter was under review by that committee. However, before it went back to the committee, on February 14, 1929, I asked that the same resolution as I moved the year before be adopted by the house in order to give the committee the opportunity of considering it during the session of 1929.
In both years the committee made a report to this house. That report was in many respects somewhat ambiguous. They favoured the principle, but I have long since come to the conclusion that a little bit of action is worth more than many resolutions in the House of Commons.
On June 1, 1928, the committee submitted to this house its first report, recognizing the necessity of providing some form of unemployment insurance, and that it would have to be dealt with before very long. It also recognized the question of jurisdiction as between the provinces and the dominion in clause 3 of the report. I think we all recognize that there is this question of jurisdiction as between federal and provincial authorities, a very important issue.
On May 1, 1929, when the second report came before this house, I was not satisfied that the committee had gone as far as it could. It is not enough merely to point out the difficulties inherent in our constitution in connection with this sort of legislation. On Thursday, May 23, the chairman of the committee submitted the report in the house for its approval, and I asked by way of amendment that the report be referred back to the committee on industrial and international relations with the following instruction:
That the said report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations be not now concurred in but that it be referred back to the select standing committee on industrial and international relations with instructions that they have power to amend the same by adding thereto a clause recommending that all the provinces of the dominion be requested to pass legislation under which the jurisdiction in relation to legislation providing for unemployment, sickness and invalidity insurance based on compulsory contribution and' which is now claimed to be within or subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces be vested in the dominion government.
My purpose at that time, in moving that the report of the committee on industrial relations be amended, was to have the house take concrete and definite action. It is quite true that in 1929 the unemployment situation was not as serious as it is at the present time, but we knew that as surely as night follows day, cycles of depression follow cycles

Ways and Means
of prosperity. So I wanted the report referred back, with the idea of bringing in some legislation which could be adopted by the provinces exactly as they have adopted the federal legislation in regard to the old age pension measure.
At that time my amendment was ridiculed; lawyers on both sides of the house rose and told me how badly it was drafted, how impossible it was, and how it was ultra vires of the constitution. When the matter came to a vote we saw all the Liberals and Conservatives vote against the amendment, with only eighteen or twenty members of the house supporting it. My amendment was defeated, and that was the last we heard about unemployment insurance for some little time. However, the unemployment situation became worse, and on March 31, 1930, the following year, on going into supply I moved:
-in the opinion of this house the government should take immediate action to deal with the question of unemployment.
Again I raised the question of unemployment insurance.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am sorry that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, but I shall take the opportunity, perhaps when one of the bills is before the house, to present the remainder of the data I have before me respecting efforts made to secure action respecting social legislation.
Motion (Mr. Rowe) agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That the address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of the house as are of the honourable the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That this house will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is just
giving notice that to-morrow the motion will be moved?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, I am moving it now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think notice has to be given.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think not, according to
the rules.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my hon.
friend quite sure of that?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the right
hon. leader of the opposition raises the question of whether notice is required. I am advised that it is not. Rule 57 reads as follows:
The house will appoint the committees of supply and ways and means at the commencement of every session, so soon as an address has been agreed to, in answer to His Excellency's speech.
No notice is required or ever has been given, I am advised.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was rather
surprised that the government did not give notice at a previous sitting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My right hon. friend
will remember that last session I brought in the motion before the address was adopted. Probably that is what he has in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

["Eleven o'clock."]
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That this house will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That the estimates tabled on the 23rd instant, together with the accompanying message of His Excellency, be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, January 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Church:
That in the opinion of this house Canada should inaugurate at once a national housing, building and reconstruction policy adapted to its circumstances, and that such a policy is an economic and social necessity and in the best interests of the people of our country.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (East Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the house for more than a few moments this afternoon
Housing Policy-Mr. Church

he made last night in Montreal that there is to be a reconstruction policy, which I understand from the newspapers will involve some $40,000,000. I am glad also that something is to be done with regard to housing, commensurate with the needs of the country and the ability of the taxpayer to pay, in view of the state of the country's finances. There is no reason why this policy should not be supported by the Progressive and the Liberal parties, for it is good Liberal doctrine. It seems to me that the government in the old country is to be commended. While it is true that it may be called a Labour government, it is supported by the Conservative party there, and it is certainly to be congratulated on the reforms which it is carrying out. I believe all parties in the house should unite and do something to try not only to cure this defect but to help tc remedy this unemployment that is bearing so heavily upon our people.
The hon. member for Paiw Sound (Mr. Arthurs) will second the motion.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: Mr. Speaker I have supported the resolution of the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) from a partly different viewpoint. I am not altogether in favour of every argument he has advanced in support of this resolution, but I have a vivid recollection of 1919 when the then dominion government decided to appropriate an amount of, I think, $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 for the purpose of a housing scheme. The result of this was to give employment to a great number of men. The money was distributed, as I remember, according to population and as a result the government has received back from most, if not all of the provinces, the total amount of the capital expenditure. This scheme at that time produced certain results that were beneficial to the country as a whole.
We must remember, too, that the building industry as such is composed of at least ninety to ninety-five per cent of labour and I say that after careful study of the situation. We have, for instance, the steel industry in Canada which supplies the wants of most of our Canadian building industries. We have the cement industry, the brick industry, the lumber industry and all those others that combine to make a house for an ordinary man in an ordinary situation. In every one of these cases it will be found that on the average the labour costs are at least ninety per cent of the whole. Therefore, any policy that might be enunciated by any government in Great Britain or any other country, would have the advantage of giving employment to the ex-
tent of ninety to ninety-five per cent of the total expenditure.
There is no doubt at the present time the building situation in Canada as in many other countries is at an absolute standstill. We have not the ordinal amount of capital flowing from our insurance companies or from other sources which are willing to accept mortgages at the present mortgage rates. The result is that the building industry in cities like Toronto, Montreal and many others is at an absolute standstill and two and even three families are being crowded into premises which originally were designed to house only one. I am not interested in this proposition except perhaps from this viewpoint, that I represent a riding which is concerned largely with the lumbering industry and partly with the other industries connected with the building program. We also wish to build more freely and under better conditions, just the same as the city of Toronto does. I am sure this is equally true of Montreal, Sorel or any other city in Quebec, and it is equally true in the western provinces. I am desirous of having this government if possible enunciate a policy which will tend to relieve the situation and which will give an impetus to the building of homes for our people throughout the dominion. There is no question about the fact that, as I have already stated, this money will eventually go to the extent of ninety-five per cent into the hands of our wage earners. I can conceive of nothing which would do more to better the present situation than a proposal of this kind.
I represent a riding which is partly lumbering, partly farming. During the winter the farmers depend to a great extent upon the lumbering industry, and this has been cut off, not because of hard times, but simply because the building industry has been strangled by one means or another; and I have no intention of saying what those means are. But I believe if the government would accept a policy of this kind and do what is possible, as was done in 1919, to relieve the housing situation, they would accomplish a great deal and would be doing it in the right way.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) for introducing the resolution which is now before the house. It is one of the most sensible which he could have introduced and naturally I should commend it seeing that I urged such a project upon the government in 1932 and introduced a resolution somewhat similar in character a year ago. The fact that Great Britain and the United States have both engaged very

Housing Policy-Mr. Coote
actively in the construction of houses for their people during the last two or three years lends a good deal of added weight to our request or demand for government action along this line at this time.
I believe this is what a housing project at the present time would mean; it would be bringing idle men and idle equipment together and employing them on our natural resources to create real wealth in the shape of houses that are very much needed in Canada.
Mr. ST-PERE: There is no shortage of houses in Montreal.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to stress the need of good homes in Canada because of the climate in which we live, and while I do not want to advertise our climate as not being a good one, it is such that our people should be able to enjoy the benefit of good warm modern homes whereas about one-half of our houses are not of that type. A large percentage of the people in our part of the country are living in what we call shacks, and a large percentage of those in the cities are living in what are termed slums. The bureau of statistics, I know, has considerable information upon this subject, information that was gathered when the census was taken in 1931. Unfortunately, that information has not yet been made available to us in pamphlet form. I understand it will very soon be available and I regret it has been so long delayed. Of course I realize that is because the bureau has been a little short of help in compiling the statistics in that form. I know there is a need for many more rural homes-and I say "homes" advisedly, because as to many of the places in which our people are living it is a little difficult to call them homes, they are so inadequate. Only five per cent of the farm homes in Canada are equipped with bathrooms with running water. Six hundred and fifty thousand farm homes in Canada should be equipped to-day with modern facilities, and in any housing project which may be started should take cognizance of that situation. In other words, the project should be such that many of these houses in the country could be changed into modern homes. I mean that in addition to building new houses it should be possible to have a scheme for financing the rehabilitation of a lot of houses that now exist.
I have here a few facts gathered by a housing commission in the city of Halifax a few years ago. I placed them on Hansard in March, 1932, and seeing that no steps have been taken, as far as I know, to remedy these conditions I would like to quote two or three of them again. I am sure they are indicative of conditions that exist in other cities of Canada as well. They showed that in one
case, for one room in a cellar occupied by five persons, a monthly rental of $10 was being collected. In another case people were paying $6 a. month for one room in a cellar occupied by seven persons. In another case $12 was being paid for living quarters in the loft of a barn occupied by six persons. Seven rooms were occupied by twenty-eight persons at a rental of $150 per month. In another case two cellar rooms occupied by eight persons cost $10 per month. In one case one dark room with door only was occupied by three persons for which they paid $10 a month. Many other somewhat similar instances are quoted in that report. I say again I do not think this applies only or particularly to the city of Halifax; it is a situation that can be duplicated in many of our cities. I am simply trying to make the point clear that houses are needed both in the cities and in the rural communities. We have in Canada everything necessary for the construction of houses-concrete, brick, stone, lumber; I think all kinds of building material and building hardware is manufactured here. I presume even the window glass can be made in Canada, or if not we certainly could trade wheat with Belgium for it.


Mr. QUINN:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he tell me if these rentals just quoted are charged for properties under the control of the housing commission in Halifax?


George Gibson Coote: Oh, I do not think so. I
did not want to create that impression. I said these facts were published in a report issued by a local commission appointed to investigate housing conditions there.
As I say, we have all these materials; we have the architects, the engineers, the artisans, the labourers; and leaving money and credit out of account there is theoretically no impossibility about using our natural resources, our equipment and our men to construct houses for the people. These houses would be an asset on which the credit, or money, whichever you like to call it, which is necessary for the instituting of this work could be created.
I hope that if such a program is undertaken it will be financed at a very low rate of interest, because the rate of interest charged for the construction of these buildings will largely determine whether or not the people can buy them. The difference between eight per cent, which people are now paying on houses bought on the instalment plan-in one case I know of ten per cent is being paid or attempted to be paid-the difference between those rates and a rate of two per cent, which

Housing Policy-Miss Macphail
is available, I believe, in some cases in the United States, in itself would enable these people to pay for their houses over a reasonable term of years. There has not been a time for many years when construction costs were so low, that is when houses could be constructed at as low a capital cost.
I would like to emphasize the point, brought out by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs), that housing provides more employment than most other kinds of work in relation to the amount of money expended. I have here an article from Collier's, dealing with the construction of houses in the United States, which gives some particulars of where the dollar goes. It says:
The public works administration has tried to estimate the destiny of the dollars spent in low cost housing. Here is the way it works out: Out of every dollar spent, six cents goes to the architect, superintendents, foremen, clerks, et cetera. Thirty-eight cents goes to the building trades workers; twenty cents to the workers in the mills which make lumber, bricks, cement, plumbing, electric wiring and other fabricated materials. Another seven cents goes to workers in the raw materials industries-forests, iron, coal, et cetera. Four cents goes to workers on railroads and trucking for transporting goods et cetera. This makes seventy-five cents paid out to labour in wages. And what becomes of that? Remember the private life of the dollar I told you of. This building dollar goes to stores for shoes, hats, radios, etc., to factories, to workers in factories, to farmers and so on.
And then he says:
Imagine two billion dollars living private lives like this.
In Canada I do not suppose we would go to the extent of two billion dollars, but whatever amount we invest in a housing scheme will largely go through the hands of labour, to circulate as indicated in that quotation.
On another page of the same article there is given a picture of some low priced homes which have been built in the United States. It shows one set of buildings and says that the average cost, including a barn in this case and a three-quarter acre plot, was 32,150.
Mr. ST-PERE:	Is that in the southern
states?


George Gibson Coote: It is in the state of Virginia.
Mr. ST-PERE:	No wonder it would cost
only $2,150.


George Gibson Coote: We could put a few hundred dollars more on that and build a good warm house. I hope if we do engage in a housing scheme the houses will be insulated

to make them suitable for a climate such as we find in Ottawa to-day. These houses could be sold to the people on easy terms; under the new policy which is to be brought in I think we might expect that the people from now on will be guaranteed an income, and I do not see why under that policy every family should not in time be able to own a home. I think that should be the objective in regard to housing in Canada- every family owning a home if they want one. I see nothing impossible about carrying that out if we have the right idea in regard to the financing of such a project.
Again I say that the houses themselves will furnish an asset against which the credit necessary to finance the scheme can be issued. I hope that before this session is over the government will arrange for commencing at least what we might call an adequate housing program for the people of Canada.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I want to say how
thoroughly I am in sympathy with this resolution. I am not, however, going to devote the short speech I intend to make to the building of houses, but rather to the repairing of houses, and not only houses but buildings in the country-country houses and farm buildings. In Ontario anyone who has been watching the countryside with an observant eye will have noticed that in the last ten years or more the buildings, including the dwelling houses, have been deteriorating. Roofs are leaking-they need new roofing; the buildings need painting; the stables in many cases need repair or replacement; the houses are almost without the conveniences that houses should have-plumbing, sanitary conveniences, and lighting fixtures. As I listened to-day to the several speeches made on the address in reply, excellent speeches, that much as I find myself in agreement with the social legislation now proposed, I have become more and more alarmed with regard to the position of the farmer. Many of these proposals, good as they are, are for those other than agriculturists, and unless something is to be done to guarantee to the farmer if not a fixed price at any rate a price level that will take care of the cost of production, including wages for the farmer and all the members of his family who work with him, I really view the future for agriculture with a good deal of misgiving.
The rural buildings in the province of Ontario need repair terribly. I am familiar with this province; as I go over it and see the sections and counties that were really beautiful

Housing Policy-Mr. Mitchell
ten or fifteen years ago, and contrast with that their present condition, I cannot help but become saddened by it, as I am sure other hon. members of this house must be. I feel that if we are going to have a housing scheme, part of that scheme must have relation to the repair of such existing buildings as should be repaired, and the needs of the farmers must be particularly considered. All hon. members, as politicians, must be familiar with farm houses; some of you must have stayed in them, particularly hon. members who have constituencies which are partly rural. You know without being told how much the farmer is doing without. You know, as I do, something of what he is putting up with, the lack of reasonably good housing, of decent lighting, of sanitary conveniences, of comfortable furniture, of adequate reading material and of almost everything that goes to make up the sum total of human happiness. So, much as I favour the housing program, I want to say as emphatically as possible that any program that does not provide for the repair of such farm buildings as already exist, as well as the installation of conveniences in farm homes, is insufficient. It is a fact that many farmers who are still struggling to pay their debts, who still call themselves independent and who resent any suggestion of what they still call charity, are living below the level of people on relief. There is no doubt of it; they are living in worse homes, they have poorer food and clothing and less recreation.
That brings me to the question of the cost. The farmers cannot afford much unless farm prices are raised, and I read the speech from the throne in vain for assurance that would give me hope that this is to come about. If farm prices are not raised then any interest rates that the farmer may be required to pay must be very, very low. I do not believe that agriculture in the province of Ontario to-day can afford to pay interest rates of more than three per cent either for repairs, for mortgages or for the requirements of the farm. I believe three per cent is the limit. So, in supporting the proposal advanced by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) I want to stress the need for low interest rates. It seems to me that if the chartered banks can pull figures out of thin air which they call money, there is no reason at all why the dominion government cannot do the same thing. They should be able to lend vast sums of money to municipalities at exceedingly low rates of interest, and I believe this plan would work out better if the municipalities are closer to the people. Condi-92582-XI
tions vary so much as between municipalities and provinces that I feel that a central commission could not handle the whole scheme anything like as well as it could be handled by the municipalities themselves, with of course, some supervision on the part of the government. But the financing must be done by the central source, the federal government, and it must be at extremely low rates of interest.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one or two observations with regard to the resolution moved by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church). I believe that if he has done nothing else he has made a distinct contribution to the present session of parliament by moving this resolution, which may result in a crystallization of opinion from one end of the dominion to the other as to the vital necessity of a housing policy at least within the confines of the larger centres.
An hon. member representing a Montreal constituency said that there was no shortage of houses in that city. That may be true, but I think it is only fair to say that I know of no city in the dominion that needs a housing policy more than it is needed by the city of Montreal. I do not say that in any spirit of criticism; to a lesser degree the same might be said of the city of Toronto, and from my practical experience in the city of Hamilton I certainly .believe it is needed there.
One of the most important problems confronting us in negotiating any building policy under private enterprise is the enormous lieight to which interest rates have risen in the last three or four years, making it economically unsound to launch a building program of any description. The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) spoke of houses that needed repair. I speak of houses that are .beyond repair. Conditions exist in most of the larger cities of eastern Canada which, in my judgment, constitute a challenge to the vision of those responsible for the housing of our population. Last year I spent some time in England and on the continent, and I was amazed at the real progress that has been made there in connection with housing schemes, most of which have had assistance from the various governments. Even where I lived in England as a boy I noticed a tremendous difference, with the development of garden cities and other developments that were economically sound because they were revenue producing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, this is the sixth session of this seventeenth parliament. If the suggestion that was made by the opposition in the first session with. respect to

Housing Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
the appointment of a national commission whose duties it would be to supervise all efforts at relief and methods of securing employment for the unemployed had been adopted, this motion would not have been necessary at this time because its objectives would have been attained long before this.
Hon. members I think will recall that at the first session of this parliament, the so-called special session, and all subsequent sessions, I stressed very strongly the desirability of the government, in dealing with the problem of unemployment, appointing a national commission or committee, a body that would be representative of the more important industrial and philanthropic interests in the country, of employers and employees, of railway companies, of such organizations as chambers of commerce, the manufacturers' association, the trades and labour congress, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross and bodies of that sort, which national commission would be a body formed for the purpose of administering expenditure of federal appropriations for relief purposes and supervising and linking up all efforts at relieving unemployment and providing work by coordinating whatever might owe its origin to funds provided by the federal government, provincial governments and municipalities or other bodies.
The government at that time, I believe, thought the depression was not going to be of long duration, and, as members will recall, the vote of S20,000,000 was asked for. It was voted in a lump sum without any indication being given to the House of Commons as to how' that money was likely to be spent, other than that it was in the nature of a grant in aid to the provinces in connection with public works which they themselves might undertake. I think it was to be one-third of what might be given by the provinces and by the municipalities themselves.
Session after session that same method was adopted of voting large sums of public money. In fact we reached the point the very next session, I think it was, where money was voted under what is known as the blank cheque system, the government taking what it pleased out of the treasury to give to the provinces as grants in aid in the name of relief or for the purpose of providing employment for the unemployed, this wTas given to those provinces which w'ere assisting municipalities requiring on their side a contribution by the municipalities.
Well, that wTas tried for a while, and then we came to have a program of construction, more or less indefinite, but after a lapse of a year or so at the last session made fairly 92582-114
definite, when a bill was passed appropriating public moneys for the construction of public works and public buildings.
In. addition to those methods there was also for a considerable time, and is yet, what we apeak of as the dole, simply the giving out of sums of money to be paid) to families that are in need of immediate direct relief. But at no time has the government had any policy that could be called such, a policy with respect to providing work and administering relief which from beginning to close was consistent and continuous.
I might read again what I read on monday last as the statement of Liberal policy on this matter, as it was outlined at the first session and subsequent sessions and as it was placed on record along with other matters of Liberal policy in one comprehensive Statement in this house on February 27, 1933:
Unemployment of First Concern
The Liberal party believes unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem. It would deal with the present emergency conditions through a representative national commission, which would cooperate with the provinces and municipalities in the administration of unemployment relief, and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed.
' In an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed." If we had had in Canada a national commission of the kind operating during the last three, four or five years, does any hon. member believe it would be necessary at this time for a private member of this house to bring in a resolution pointing out the necessity of the government having a policy on housing? Would not the housing question have arisen in connection with any national scheme of providing work? You have these large public buildings that are being put up here and there, but, as everyone knows, in municipalities the need for proper housing conditions is very great indeed. In Toronto within this last year an important committee has been at work on the housing question in that city. His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario is chairman of the committee that was appointed to deal with the matter, and the report which the committee has submitted is an excellent one, disclosing as it does the development of slum conditions in the city and the need for proper housing conditions for many of the citizens of Toronto. I am sure that similar conditions exist in Montreal, and to a lesser extent in ail the larger centres throughout the dominion. Does anyone suppose for a moment that a national body administering federal moneys for purposes of providing relief to the unemployed
164	COMMONS
Housing Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
and supervising the work of the provinces and of the municipalities and of the dominion, where public moneys were being spent from all three sources, would not have, long before this, developed in connection with any such scheme a housing plan which would be part of a nation-wide plan?
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and myself had the privilege and the pleasure of visiting Great Britain last year. I am sure he was impressed, as I was, with what is to be seen there of the immensely improved conditions" as respects housing for the industrial classes throughout Great Britain. There is nothing quite so much in evidence as to what has been and is being done in the way of improving the living conditions of the people during this period of hard times, as is to be seen in the improved housing conditions. The better housing schemes have served two purposes. To begin with, they have enabled the unemployed to iind work, and in the second place they have .^permitted that work to be of a class which -would help to serve the special needs of great industrial communities. Two birds, in other words, have been killed with the one stone; public moneys, in helping to provide employment, have also helped to provide better housing conditions. I had the privilege also of visiting one or two other countries in Europe, and I must say that what I saw, especially in Italy, in the way of what the government had accomplished during this period of unemployment by putting to work unemployed men on housing schemes, park and recreational developments and the improvement of conditions generally in the cities and around the homes of the working classes was the most impressive of anything I saw while abroad.
In the working out of a national housing, building and reconstruction policy, there is no need of any question of jurisdiction arising. The plan that was suggested by the opposition was offered as a plan which would avoid the necessity of any question of jurisdiction being raised, because it did not suggest more than that the commission's work should be carried on with the voluntary cooperation of the provinces and the municipalities. I remember at the time that the Prime Minister stated that he did not think any moneys paid out of the federal treasury to the provinces should be supervised even by the auditor general-that it would be an insult to ask that the auditor general be given the right of seeing how federal moneys which had been turned over to the provinces to assist in unemployment relief
[Mr. Mackenzie King i
had been spent. Well, I think the Prime Minister has seen-he has confessed it-that there was enormous waste of public money as a result of failure to adopt that precaution of having all public expenditures out of the federal treasury supervised by the officer of this parliament who has been appointed for that purpose.
Not only has this money been in large part wasted, but many of the municipalities have found themselves well-nigh driven into a position of bankruptcy, simply because for a long time they felt that the only way in which they could get a share of federal or provincial moneys was by agreeing to contribute more for public expenditures on relieving unemployment than they would otherwise have felt they were in a position to afford.
I am sure that a body of the character which I have suggested would have been of great service. It was suggested every session, first at the short session, then at the second, the third, the fourth and the fifth, and now at this sixth session I am going to suggest it again as the proper way of dealing with this question, namely, the appointment of a national commission to supervise the whole matter of the expenditure of public moneys on relief and in providing means of employment. That is the step that should be taken if this work which is nation-wide in extent is to be carried out effectively. It is essentially effective cooperation and coordination in all effort that looks to providing employment that is needed in dealing with a great problem, such as this problem has been all along through these past five years.
During the time of the war, when we had a national patriotic fund to be administered, a national committee was appointed under federal act for the purpose, and the auditor general or a member of his staff was appointed in connection with the supervision of all outlays. Some of the moneys were federal, some were provincial and some were moneys raised by municipalities and voluntary organizations of one character or another. But the whole fund was administered and supervised as one, the actual disbursements being made of course locally, but the fund ran into many millions of dollars. When the committee's work was completed, and the auditor general's department made its report on the expenditure of the moneys every cent of the moneys contributed from different sources was accounted for. As far as I recall, and I was a member of the national committee, there was not a single dollar of money that had been contributed to the patriotic fund which was not

Housing Policy-Mr. Bennett
fully accounted for, and it was all spent for the purpose of caring for families in need, where the head of the family or the ones upon whom others were dependent were serving overseas, or had been killed or wounded in the war. To that example and precedent I have directed the attention of the house at the different sessions which I have mentioned, pointing out that it ought to be sufficient in itself as an example to guide the government in matters of this kind.
I will not say more on this subject now because it is more important to get these things done than to talk about them; but I hope the Prime Minister this evening will speedily assure the house that the government is wholeheartedly in support of this resolution which asks that the government have some policy on housing, building and reconstruction. I know that every hon. member on this side would welcome such a step and regrets that some step leading to this end was not taken six or rather five sessions ago instead of at this last moment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some hon. gentlemen opposite are laughing; I do not know at what they are laughing.


An hon. MEMBER:: Fifteen years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and a nice position we should have been in to take this step fifteen years ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Union government did fifteen years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but I am not responsible for anything they did or did not do. I am responsible for the position I have taken on the matter, and I repeat that, reviewing it calmly, it will be seen that what I have suggested is the one satisfactory and sensible method of dealing with this question. And it is the only method which escapes the vexatious question of jurisdiction and at the same time affords effective means of bringing about that coordination which is absolutely necessary if the work is to be extensively and efficiently performed and, at the same time, performed without colossal waste of public money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Housing Policy-Mr. Bennett
tion that we have in this country, where we have a federal system as distinct from the system of government in Great Britain and where provinces are jealous of their rights, the right hon. gentleman knows quite well that he had to meet that very situation when he dealt with old age pensions, and instead of auditing the old age pensions in the sense in which he now refers to the matter, he will recall that what happens is that the provinces under the statute that he enacted receive from the dominion fifty per cent of the sum that was paid out for old age pensions-it is now seventy-five per cent-and the auditor general does not examine or scrutinize or audit the payments to individuals; all he deals with is the payments that are made to the provinces to meet demands which they say they must liquidate under the terms of the measure in question. The grants that have been made to provinces under those circumstances are many, and the reason for such grants being made is apparent. The provinces are very jealous of their jurisdiction; especially is that true with respect to some of the older provinces, and they will not calmly or in any other way submit to their jurisdiction being taken away from them and exercised by the federal authority. Some of the newer provinces occupy somewhat the same position with respect to matters of this kind.
It has been common ground between the right hon. gentleman and myself that the primary obligation with respect to relief under our constitution rests with the small community, whether it be a municipality, a village, a town or a city. The second liability rests with the province that brought those organizations into being, and if the question is of a national character the dominion must assist. The extent of and the manner in which that assistance shall be given has been heretofore a matter of arrangement between the provinces and the dominion. Each of the provinces during the last three or four years has looked upon these payments in a somewhat different way. In a rich and old province like Ontario they carried forward a large number of public works and undertakings for the reason that, being well to do, the municipality was able to pay a portion of the cost; then the province made a contribution and the dominion paid a certain part of the labour cost or made a grant in aid. The result is that there have been constructed in Ontario, in cities, towns, in organized districts such as villages and what are called rural communities, in counties, large undertakings to which all three have contributed. To suggest at any time to the province of Ontario that some commission would determine how muni-
cipalities or towns or other communities or the province itself should expend given money is a matter to which they have not listened favourably; at least they did not in my time. They may have changed.
In Quebec the greatest difficulty was of course in the city of Montreal. There a commission was set up by the province, but the manner in which it administered its duties was not at all times satisfactory to those who created it, and they have had many difficulties to overcome. In the western provinces commissions were set up for the purpose of determining how assistance could be granted, to what extent work might be possible, and I shall point out that in the part of the country where unemployment was very noticeable, that is because of crop failures and other conditions that obtained, there were seasonal difficulties, very cold weather, which made it impossible to carry on building and many other operations that could be carried on in warmer climates. A construction program was the first one the late Senator Robertson initiated and organized from one end of the country to the other. He provided1 for the elimination of level crossings on railways, which he hoped might do much to provide employment and do away with a common danger which we all recognize. That did not give employment to the extent that was expected, and the expenditures were not in the main, shall I say, very much appreciated by the communities in which they were made. Then the question of the construction of highways seemed to be the only method by which public moneys could afford employment to the class which appeared to be at that time, because of lack of crops, suffering very considerably. The result was that roads were constructed; that is, assistance was given to the province to enable roads to be constructed, and from Manitoba to the Rocky mountains a considerable number of miles of road were constructed and improved, giving employment to men, teams, and in every way doing something to lessen the evils of unemployment. In British Columbia the Parks branch expanded the program that had been outlined by our predecessors in office and in the other national parks the same thing took place. The result was that a considerable number of people found employment, but in all these cases the provinces outside the national parks claimed the right to exercise their jurisdiction and to determine where, so far as it might be possible, work could best be done for the purpose of providing employment. I do say to the right hon. gentleman that there were no

Housing Policy-Mr. Bennett
greater abuses, having regard to the amounts involved in the expenditures of the moneys to which the dominion contributed, than there has been in respect to old age pensions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not
correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure it is not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is more, the investigation we have made shows the situation to be even worse in regard to old age pensions than it is in regard to unemployment relief, except in a few isolated cases where laxity was so apparent as to necessitate criminal proceedings being taken, not by the dominion but by the communities themselves that were defrauded of their moneys by those receiving benefits.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did the right hon. gentleman himself not find it necessary two years ago to pass an order in council providing that the auditor general should audit these very moneys that were being handed over to the provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: An order in council was passed with respect to public works and undertakings, not of the type to which the right hon. gentleman has referred, but of the type where contributions were made to the cost of the ultimate undertaking providing that the auditor general should examine and determine whether the moneys which had been granted were properly expended. I was able to point out to the right hon. gentleman by the production of a sample sheet that had been approved by the comptroller of the treasury that no moneys thus expended were expended so far as the issuing of the cheque was concerned unless and until there appeared upon the sheet the initials of two auditors of the auditor general's department as a preaudit of their correctness, a certificate by the municipality itself that the moneys were expended in the municipality, and a certificate by the province in which the moneys were expended, so that whatever might happen, if there were fraud or deception practised, the dominion would be always in a position to secure from the province or municipality any moneys that had been improperly used. I am informed that there was no single case in which the comptroller of the treasury issued a cheque in which there was not, prior to the cheque being issued, a certificate not only of the province but of the lesser organization,
whether it be a town or a city or a municipality, in which the money had been expended, as to the correctness of the expenditure. I mention that because in connection with matters of that kind, it is quite clear the situation is entirely different from the granting of, let us say, S100 for municipal aid. If there is need for municipal aid of $100, it is obvious the manner in which the municipality may expend that money is not a matter into which the auditor general could inquire, except to see that the municipality had properly received it, if it were a grant in aid.
A construction program with respect to roads, with respect to railway crossings and other matters was settled and determined by the late Senator Robertson on the first tour he made to the Pacific coast and back. During that fall a substantial number of men were employed at that kind of work, but of course when the cold weather came on such work could not proceed in the prairie provinces. In every case, however, the next year and the next, the character of the undertakings was determined by conferences with the provinces.
The difference between the suggestion which the right hon. gentleman makes and the policy pursued by the government is this; we endeavoured by cooperation with the provinces -not having any contact with the municipalities, they being the creatures of the provincial legislatures-to assist the provinces in the discharge of their duty, having regard to the national character of the problems with which we had to deal. The right hon. gentleman suggests that a commission or committee might have been set up which would be able to deal with all the provinces. We believed that the problem in each province was somewhat different, and that the provincial governments and local authorities cooperating with the dominion could determine how the problem should be dealt with, what works should be done, and moneys expended, by agreement between the provinces and the dominion better than by any commission that might be appointed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid my right hon. friend, in making a comparison between his plan and mine, if I may use that expression, has not caught the significance of what I have suggested. I have never suggested that a commission should take out of the hands of the federal government its obligations beyond supervising and administering in part federal expenditures of public employment relief moneys in accordance with a definite plan. What I have suggested is that there should be a national commission which would cooperate with the federal government,

Housing Policy-Mr. Bennett
with the provincial governments and with the municipalities, which would endeavour to coordinate the efforts of all and which would report its doings and recommendations in a manner that all these bodies would have a complete picture of all public efforts for the purpose of providing employment and affording relief with a view to having these coordinated, on a voluntary basis of course. Being in a position to say on what conditions federal relief moneys would become available to the provinces and municipalities, and how their expenditure should be audited, such a commission would have little difficulty in effecting coordination.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the right hon. gentleman realizes that it is not in accord with the general rules of the house that he should make another speech in the midst of mine.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But if my right hon. friend is going to state what my policy is I must be permitted to correct him if he states it wrongly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am content to leave myself entirely in the hands of the house as to whether I have not correctly stated it. 1 listened with much attention to the right hon. gentleman. He stated that he thought there should be a commission or committee, and the duty of that committee would be to coordinate the efforts of the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Supervise everything, administer federal relief funds and do what it could to coordinate the several activities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In other words they would be a fifth wheel to the coach. I did suggest that to deprive the provinces of their powers, to endeavour, by voluntary effort, if you will, to determine how each province should expend its money, was something that the provinces did not indicate any desire or willingness to agree to. They felt that the problem was primarily theirs, although we were giving them assistance, and they were willing to discuss and consider and determine what was best and most urgent and most desirable to be done and how their public moneys as well as ours could best be expended. That was a recognition of their position as sovereign legislatures within the scope of their activities; at the same time the dominion was discharging its obligation to them by giving the assistance I have indicated. That was a recognition of the right of the provinces to continue their activities. It is under that

power that Saskatchewan continues to exercise its powers, contending that they can do it better, more reasonably-and I might add, more politically-than could otherwise be done.
Then there came the position in the province of Quebec. That province contended that they knew far more about the immediate necessities for road construction and various undertakings that should be gone forward with in the province at a particular time than any commission could learn, because a commission must necessarily turn to the provincial government to obtain the information in question. Any commission, however well informed, would never be quite as well informed as the government itself. So the government undertook the responsibility of coordinating its efforts. I should like this to be clearly understood: in every instance where works were undertaken there was an agreement indicating that the province and the dominion had arrived at a conclusion that the given undertaking should be gone on with and that the dominion would make a contribution of a given amount to the cost and the province would determine what it should pay. As 1 say, sometimes municipalities, the rich province of Ontario for instance, made large contributions because they were getting necessary undertakings constructed or completed in a manner that lessened the obligation which would otherwise have been imposed on the ratepayers. To the extent that they received assistance from the dominion or the province the obligation on the ratepayers of the municipality was lessened. When you look at the returns already tabled you will find that in a rich old province such as Ontario they spent very much more money relatively than other provinces, and obtained larger sums from the dominion because their municipalities were in sufficiently good circumstances financially to enable them to undertake such works. The province fixed a figure in all cases that they would give in the way of assistance, either a percentage of the cost of the entire undertaking or a percentage of the labour cost. And in every instance the cabinet determined, the minister having first made a recommendation of what he thought should be done in the way of payment by the dominion, to assist in works of that kind. Of course in unorganized territories where work could not be carried on and where the province had the burden of direct relief, they sought and obtained from the dominion assistance from time to time, sometimes through the medium of a commission which they themselves set up, sometimes directly without

Housing Policy-Mr. Bennett
the intervention of a commission, the province itself assuming the responsibility. But in every case there has been agreement between the province and the dominion. In every case the dominion has taken the position that it could not deal with the municipalities as such, for the municipalities were the creature of the legislatures and the only contact between the dominion and the municipalities was through the provincial governments that called them into being.
That has resulted in very large numbers of public works and undertakings being constructed. When hon. gentlemen study the returns that have been filed they will be amazed, as I have been, to find the extent to which in the old municipalities of various parts of Canada sewer works, streets and sidewalks have been constructed and repairs undertaken; and they have also dealt with, shall I say, some factors of the housing problem. But we did not feel that we were in a position financially during those days to undertake any large scheme of housing such as had been contemplated in Canada in 1919, or in Great Britain. Necessarily many things that one would like to have done could npt be done because of the restrictions imposed upon us by our financial position, largely because with the accentuation of the depression, the slackening of earnings by the Canadian National railway system imposed a larger burden upon the taxpayers to meet the interest charges upon securities guaranteed by the dominion. That is a fact.
Now conditions have improved. Last year we offered to the house a public works program based upon two facts: one being that conditions were improving; the other that the increased price of gold, with the corresponding application of the principle unanimously adopted at the world economic conference as to the extent to which metallic coverage should be provided for our currency, enabled us to offer a program involving an expenditure of forty to fifty million dollars for public works. I say, as I said last night, that it has had a very excellent effect. It has stimulated business and improved credit conditions. But the full effect of the works will not be felt this year, because the preparation of plans and designs and preparation of the sites for the work has taken time, but all this and the acquisition of materials has gone on and conditions have greatly improved.
Now the question is what shall be done with respect to housing. It may surprise the right hon. gentleman, as it surprised me, I may say very frankly, to learn that with respect to one city we were very anxious to try out a form of tenement construction that certainly
appealed very strongly to me. It was of concrete and stone, with a central heating plant; water, gas and light all were provided from a central point, and streets were laid out in an orderly fashion. But to our surprise petitions came to us asking that we should not go forward with the work, because it might interfere with the renting of private properties in the city in question, and stating that the time was not ripe to carry forward a housing program of that character.
This afternoon it was suggested in this house that painting, glazing and the improvement of the exterior as well as the interior of many of our farm houses would be desirable. I wholly agree, but there are many farmers in this country who, being thrifty souls, would not care to incur the financial obligations involved in connection with that work. I say that very frankly, because that suggestion has been contained in statements that have been sent to me from time to time with respect to the matter. But the government realized its obligation and, as will be recalled, set aside a sum of money for the purpose of painting, repairing, glazing and putting into proper condition all the public buildings owned by the crown. Commencing at Vancouver and going through to Cape Breton, that work was carried on. All the necessary work could not be accomplished, but most of it was done, and the effect upon the communities was very considerable. People who had the means themselves began to make their places look a little better, to replace the broken windows, repair the sills and put the houses in better condition. But when it comes to the question of telling individuals that you wish them to make changes, either inside or outside their buildings, on the part of most Canadians there is a tendency to say, " We are the best judges as to the extent of the money that we should spend, or the amount of the debts we should incur."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They do not like state interference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are perfectly willing to be interfered with provided it does not cost them anything; when it comes to the point of paying for it, then it is a different matter.
Now let me proceed, if I may do so without becoming tedious, to point out the position with respect to housing. It is rather a reflection upon us, is it not, that a new country such as this should be talking about housing and slum conditions? It is rather a reflection upon our civilization, according to my view of things, that less than seventy-five years after becoming a dominion we

Housing Policy-Mr. Bennett
should be talking about slum conditions. As one of the hon. members was speaking this afternoon I recalled a conversation I had many years ago with the secretary of the late Bonar Law. She had been bom in Poland, and she said, " Nothing has more impressed me than the fact that, for some strange reason, we never seem able to get away from slums." She added, " Do you realize that the east part of the city of London was completely wiped out by fire in the closing part of the seventeenth century, but that now the worst slums in London are to be found in the area that was then burned clear? Somehow or other slums have a way of growing up." She went on to say that some of the younger generation had given the matter a good deal of thought but had not been able to arrive at any conclusion. I recall also something else that was said at that moment; she said that for some reason slums are usually to be found in the east section of cities. I do not know how correct that is, but that is the observation that was made to me at that time.
In the cities of Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg-even a new city like that-as well as in some of our older communities such as the city of Halifax, which was mentioned this afternoon, there are buildings which, in my judgment, are not of the type that our people should occupy, from the standpoint of health and happiness. How is that situation to be overcome? In days gone by private capital was always ready and willing to embark on the construction of buildings, because usually that has been a very profitable investment. In the old country it has been one of the favourite forms of investment, but it has not been so in latter days, for reasons into which I need not go this evening. At all events, in 1919, we made up our minds that we would supply the provinces with certain sums of money to enable them, as was their constitutional duty, to deal with these problems. In Saint John, New Brunswick, a city of one hundred and fifty years old or more, there are certain slum clearances going on now. In the city of Halifax, as the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) might have recalled this afternoon, a great disaster occurred, and the conditions that obtained in connection with those buildings that were not completely levelled were somewhat different from the normal conditions prevailing in other communities.
What are we to do about it? That is the real problem. The commission appointed by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario went into the matter rather fully and,

as the right hon. gentleman has said a very admirable report was made. I was appalled, however, to find-I am now speaking subject to correction; perhaps my memory is not quite as good as it should be-that the report suggests that the sum of S12,000.000 would be required to provide proper dwelling houses for a certain class in that community who now live in buildings that should be condemned, and that this amount would not be self liquidating. Therefore we have two conditions to deal with. The first is the condition where you have the investment self liquidating. In that case if you set up proper machinery and the money is advanced at a reasonable rate of interest, provision is made for amortization and the properties will pay for themselves in a given number of years. That number of years should be the usual expectation of life of the structure, brick or stone or wood as it may be, with the amortization based upon a given percentage being paid from year to year, so that at the end of the period the building stands free and is supposed to be still in a reasonably decent condition allowing for both obsolescence and depreciation.
That is a simple condition; there is not a tremendous amount of difficulty in dealing with that. It can be done in one of two ways. It can be done in the manner in which we have heretofore dealt with it, namely by securing for the provinces a certain sum of money at low interest rates to enable them to deal with the matter at first hand, or we can set up a commission to deal with it ourselves. It does not seem to me that it was ever intended to be the function of a national government to deal with matters of that kind in the communities. Therefore I still think the method adopted by the government of 1919 or 1920 was the sound method. As a matter of fact inquiries have been made by the government during the last few months, especially in view of the reports coming from Montreal, whence we have received very excellent suggestions looking towards the establishment of homes with little bits of land attached to them. It seems to me that, however small it may be, if there is an area in which a kitchen garden can flourish, with room for a few flowers in front, it adds greatly to the happiness of the persons who have to live in those homes. Similar suggestions have come from other cities in Canada, and of course the condition in Vancouver is well known. They have their difficulties in connection with clearing land when you go out certain distances from the city, but the land close to Vancouver I think may be said to be fairly clear and available for housing purposes.

Housing Policy-Mr. Bennett
The second case is one presenting much more difficulty; it is that class of case which is not self liquidating in which we know perfectly well that, with the standard of wages that has prevailed for the last fifteen, twenty, twenty-five or thirty years, it would not be possible to provide the artisan with a dwelling that we think would be decent, on which he would be able to pay the rental necessary in order to liquidate the cost. That is a different problem altogether. It involves a contribution by the state which will not be repaid and which is a voluntary effort made by the central or provincial power, as the case may be, to add to the happiness and contentment of those who inhabit a certain type of dwelling.
I have a proposal to make. We have given a good deal of thought to this matter, and have received a very large number of suggestions. Obviously no government can adequately deal with all of them. That is the reason I am suggesting that we set up some body which would be able to cull through the suggestions and make recommendations to the government. I purpose placing the matter entirely in the hands of the house, and suggest either the selection of a committee to examine into the matter or that the committee on banking and commerce examine into and make a report to the house, having regard to the conditions to which I have referred which have not to do with the financial side of it, and also with the financial side as well. Whichever view the house thinks desirable the government is only too anxious to accede to.
For the moment I suggest that the hon. member withdraw his motion, and I say to him that I will prepare a proper resolution of which notice will be given to refer the matter either to the committee on banking and commerce or to a select committee. Sometimes there are difficulties in connection with a select committee, and it may be found easier to handle the matter with a standing committee where from time to time all members may attend. However we shall be glad to do whatever the house thinks most desirable.
In a new country such as ours this is an important problem, because we cannot afford to permit a condition develop in Canada such as has obtained, for instance, in the old city of Glasgow. That may be taken as a very good illustration of what I mean. If the condition which developed in Glasgow had been curbed at the start it would not have grown to such large proportions. If we take hold of the matter now, while we have not at the moment all the resources necessary
to enable us to do all we may desire to do, we believe we shall be able to grapple with it in such a way as to make a continuance of slum conditions impossible, and certainly to prevent any increase of the kind of tenement and small buildings to which reference has been made to-day.
I have one word more to say with respect to public works and undertakings. Obviously we cannot deal with these matters on a very large scale. We have dealt with them from two standpoints. The first standpoint is the extent to which employment may be given directly or indirectly. When I use the word "indirectly" I refer to materials which have to do with the construction and carrying on of undertakings, and to the primary and secondary and other industries connected with it. Closely-nay, I might say almost inevitably linked to that factor must be the second one, namely the necessity for the undertaking. I think if my right hon. friend and hon. members of this house will look through the list of public works and undertakings authorized last year, and any additions which may be made to that list, they will realize how necessary every undertaking was, not only for the community affected but for the country as a whole. There were wharves, breakwaters and constructions of that kind required. These were really essential to the well being of the communities, but for obvious reasons we had not heretofore been able to deal with them. That is the attitude of the government with respect to these matters, and we are entirely in the hands of the house as to whether the banking and commerce committee or a select committee should deal with the problem and make a report. We will be satisfied to place it in the hands of whichever body will best serve the interests of our country at this time.
Before resuming my seat may I say that my right hon. friend is hardly fair in his reference to the patriotic fund. The patriotic fund w'as one of which the Minister of Finance was honorary treasurer and the auditor general honorary auditor. It had nothing to do in a public way in any shape or form with the conduct of the business of the country, but was a fund created by the government, and largely by private subscriptions. In the ultimate administration-for in the part of the country in which I live I personally had something to do with it-individuals themselves were dealt with by a committee which was appointed. The honorary auditor, the auditor general himself saw that all the moneys received from every source were available for the expenditures which were made, but he did not undertake

Housing Policy-Mr. Bennett
at any time to examine as to whether or not John Smith who in Calgary was said to have received a given sum of money had actually received it, nor did he satisfy himself as to its necessity. The committee made a report upon that, and that report was acted upon. The general executive here in Ottawa dealt with the large problems of policy, the determination of the extent to which moneys which had been paid might meet the demands made upon the fund, with the interest which had accrued. As the right hon. gentleman knows, the fund is now practically exhausted. However it has been so splendidly administered and has been so great a source of assistance to those who otherwise would not be cared for that I think we may all look upon its administration with great pride. It was administered not as a public fund, but as a public trust for those who received moneys. I was honorary treasurer for the period I happened to be Minister of Finance, and the present Minister of Finance is now honorary treasurer of the fund.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was it not a public body established by act of parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For the purpose of supervising the work?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is exactly what I said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was a public body
created by statute of this parliament for the purpose of having a corporate existence or an existence as an organization to receive contributions and to disburse them for the purposes mentioned in the act, namely as a patriotic fund.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is exactly what I proposed in regard to unemployment moneys, only instead of receiving and spending direct with the exception of federal relief appropriations which it would administer directly or through the federal departments of government., it would supervise and seek to coordinate all employment relief plans, reporting upon them to each of the bodies concerned.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Before the right hon. gentleman closes his remarks may I offer a suggestion? It seems to me that a select committee composed of the various representatives of larger centres in which the need is greatest would be a proper committee to set up. But in case the government, after an
rMr. Bennett.]
understanding with the opposition, would prefer a standing committee, it seems to me that the committee on industrial relations would be better qualified than the committee on banking and commerce.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank the hon. member for Labelle for his observations. I shall submit a resolution to the house and leave it for the chamber itself to determine whether or not the standing committee I mention shall be chosen, the one mentioned by the hon. member or a select standing committee. I think there are many parts of the country in which the matter is not of very great importance, but certainly the larger centres are deeply interested. If a select committee will best serve the purpose the motion will be for such a committee. However I shall offer the motion in a form which will enable, shall I say, the opinion of the majority of members ultimately to prevail.


Thomas Langton Church: I shall gladly accept the suggestion made by the Prime Minister, and ask permission to withdraw the motion.
Motion (Mr. Church) withdrawn.


FEDERAL HEALTH POLICY
Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Speaker, 1 beg to move, seconded by Miss Macphail:
That, in the opinion of this house, the federal government should adopt a definite health policy which could be carried on in cooperation with the provincial governments.
A year ago, Mr. Speaker, I introduced a resolution in this house along somewhat similar lines. At that time, however, I suggested that the resolution should go to the committee on industrial and international relations for consideration and report. The Minister of Health at that time, although having no objection to the principle of my resolution, objected to its going to that committee or to any committee and therefore refused to consent to the resolution passing the house. Although I believe the minister at that time was entirely wrong, nevertheless in introducing the subject this session I have omitted all reference to a committee of this house so that that objection cannot be put forward, and in the hope that the resolution will be accepted by this chamber.
There is no doubt in my mind that hon. members in this house appreciate to the full the importance of this subject of public health. It is brought home to us when we realize that during the last six years we have

Health Policy-Mr. Spencer
had the subject brought before the house no less than seven times. It is true I was responsible for bringing it before the house in 1930. 1931 and 1934, and I have no apology to offer to the house for introducing it again this session.
It is recognized, I know, that the matter of public health comes under the jurisdiction of both federal and provincial authorities. The British North America Act, by which we are governed, does not indicate under which government this subject shall come, but it has been the practice of the provincial governments very largely to carry the load, and they have spent a great deal of money in the carrying on of public health work. But although nothing is said in the British North America Act as to whose is the responsibility, we recognize that consideration is given in the act to questions which are interprovincial in character. Under the act these come under federal jurisdiction. We have to recognize that sickness and disease do not stop at any provincial boundary, and I therefore feel that the federal government has a definite responsibility in this matter.
Studying this subject of public health the other day I came to realize that there were at least five problems with regard to public health that really should come under federal jurisdiction: such sicknesses as tuberculosis and cancer; the prevention and control of insanity; venereal diseases; child and maternal welfare. I appreciate the fact that certain grants have been made in past years and are made to a certain extent to-day in connection with these matters, but the load of responsibility and expense has been left very largely to the provinces. The federal government takes over complete control of immigration, complete control of the examination of immigrants coming into this country, and has spent public funds lavishly in this regard in past years. That being so, I feel I am justified in suggesting that child welfare and maternal welfare should come largely under federal jurisdiction.
Last year I pointed out that it is only at a time of great crisis that the country recognizes the enormous loss which it suffers through not having a proper health system. I pointed out that during the great war it was not until volunteers were called for that we had a situation on our hands that showed us quite clearly that owing to the lack of a proper health policy a very large number of our people were not physically, if mentally fit. Of the volunteers who came forward no less than one-third were unfit for service at the front. When it became necessary to put
conscription in force the figures were still worse, because of those called to the colours no less than two-thirds were found to be unfit for military service. This meant the loss of a huge sum of money running into millions of dollars which might have been saved if we had had in effect prior to that time a thoroughly workable and coordinated health policy.
I also pointed out last year that over 46,000 Canadian children die every year under the age of five years. This in itself is a tragedy. Everyone will admit that it is the most terrible tragedy we have to face, and I am sure the whole house will be one in feeling that a stop should be put to this toll of death; because from the very best information we can get, a large proportion, if not the majority, of these deaths could have been avoided if preventive measures had been taken.
From the best figures I can get I would say that sickness costs Canada approximately $300,000,000 a year, and when we take into account the indirect loss, the value of the lives lost-for each life has a value- the loss is upwards of a billion dollars. But let us take the figure of $300,000,000 as the direct loss through sickness. We are spending on public health through all governmental sources, federal, provincial and municipal, the sum of only $6,000,000. Surely it would be real economy to spend more in preventive measures, and so cut down this enormous cost of sickness-in other words, reduce the high cost of sickness.
I take it that most members will agree with me when I say that sickness and death are inversely proportionate to the amount of money spent on health measures. Society, it seems to me, has two responsibilities with regard to sickness: one is the adoption of curative measures, and the other is the adoption of preventive measures. Up to the present time we have paid more attention to curative than to preventive measures, and we have not achieved the results which I hope will ensue when more attention is paid to prevention. When we recognize that there are no less than 180,000 people sick daily in this country-sick enough to prevent them from working-it will be seen that we have a great problem on our hands and one that should be faced. If it were faced I am sure we should get splendid returns. We spend more in curing people than it would be necessary to spend in preventive medicine, and many people owing to the high cost of medical attendance have to go without attention owing to the high cost of medical care. I

Health Policy-Mr. Spencer
we have to look at this matter of health not only from the human point of view, which I think should be intensified, but also from that of business, and from the latter alone, so far as spending money on health is concerned, we can increase the dividends enormously over what we have done in the past. There is something wrong, for instance, when in Canada some 25,000 children die each year before they are a year old, and most of them from preventable sicknesses.
Before I close I want to congratulate the various provinces, some of which are doing better work than others, on the work they have done. As I said before, they are all handicapped in the matter of finances. I hold in my hand a magazine entitled Health, published, I believe, under the auspices of the Canadian Social Hygiene Council. This is a body of private people, well-wishers for the better health of the Canadian people, who through a very considerable volunteer effort have probably done more than most other organizations to bring before the public and the different governments, the necessity of doing better and better work with regard to the health problem. I understand the Prime Minister some time ago suggested that at the next dominion-provincial conference the subject of health should be considered. I have here a statement from the Hon. J. A. Faulkner, Minister of Health for Ontario; another from Mr. Taschereau, Premier of Quebec; another from Hon. W. J. P. MacMillan, Premier and Minister of Public Health of Prince Edward Island; another from the Hon. F. R. Davis, Minister of Public Health of Nova Scotia; another from Hon. Weir, Provincial Secretary of British Columbia; another from Mr. Bracken, Premier of Manitoba; another from Hon. George Hoadley, Minister of Health for Alberta; another from Hon. Uhrieh, Minister of Health in Saskatchewan, and lastly, one from Hon. H. I. Taylor, Minister of Health and Labour of New Brunswick. They all submit that this is the proper place in which to bring this subject up. They all make worthwhile statements in regard to the necessity of giving more attention to health, but I am only going to take time to quote a wire from one of them, which is very similar to the rest. In reply to a wire asking whether they were agreeable to taking up the matter of health at this suggested conference, Mr. Weir, Provincial Secretary of British Columbia sent this telegram:
The government of British Columbia is anxious to cooperate with the federal authorities in the promotion of public health which we regard as the very cornerstone of national well being and hence as a matter of national
[Mr Spencer.]
responsibility. Sporadic provincial attacks on cancer, venereal disease, tuberculosis, mental hygiene and child welfare, for instance, can never be so effective as coordinated measures under enlightened federal leadership. From a standpoint of scientific public health provincial boundary lines have little significance. It would be premature to discuss the possible details of health insurance before the meeting of the conference.
I have referred to these letters because they show that those responsible for health in the different provinces are all anxious and of one accord in their desire to do something with the aid of the federal government to bring about a national health plan. I therefore trust that the resolution that I have submitted will be favourably considered by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Sutherland) and that in the course of this evening it will be accepted by the house.


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: I have
listened with attention to the very interesting summary of health matters made by the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Spencer). I congratulate him on the interest that he has taken in this important subject during his time here as a representative of his constituency. I think, however, he has painted rather too gloomy a picture of the health of the people of Canada, because as a general rule I believe the health of our people will compare very favourably with that of those of other nations. No matter what is done, sickness cannot be entirely prevented; it is going to be with us no matter what measures are taken, or by what bodies. But it is also undoubtedly true that preventive steps have been and will be taken with a very beneficial effect indeed on the health of the nation. It has been said that good health is an individual's greatest asset, and that the health of its citizens is a nation's greatest care. I think that is true.
There has been a great change in the practice of medicine since the middle of the last century. This seems an excellent opportunity to glance over those changes, and I think the time spent in so doing may be profitable, because we are representatives of all parts of the country and represent many professions and callings. Therefore I should like for a few moments to indicate the changes that have taken place in the conduct of medical affairs during recent years.
Anesthesia, perhaps the greatest boon that has come to the surgeon and his patient, was discovered only during the last century. Antiseptic and aseptic surgery also came into being within the memory of almost everyone here. These developments have made pos-

Health Policy-Mr. Sutherland
sible a tremendous advance in the treatment of disease. The advances that have been made in medical science have been along three lines; that of prevention, that of diagnosis and that of treatment. In the field of prevention perhaps the greatest advances have been made in the case of some of the diseases mentioned by the hon. member. Tuberculosis, diphtheria and smallpox were at one time prevalent in this country, and one of the outstanding examples of what science has done in the prevention of disease is the combating of yellow fever which was formerly very prevalent in southern countries. I should like to give a few figures as to the improvement there has been lately with regard to some of these diseases-I am taking recent years, because compared with fifty years back there would be a tremendous change. The improvement is continuing: every year there has been a change for the better, as is shown by the following figures:
Year:	Disease	Deaths1926-Tuberculosis	(resp'y)	
6.4851933-Tuberculosis	(resp'y)	
5,6561926-Diphtheria	
9131933-Diphtheria	
2391926-Smallpox	
331933-Smallpox	
6
Another disease which the hon. member mentioned, which is a scourge of very young children, and often leaves severe complications is whooping cough. The figures on that
are as follows:
Year:	Disease	Deaths
1926-Whooping cough	 1,242
1933-Whooping cough	 552
These figures show that the continuous fight which is being put up by public bodies and public health institutions throughout the country is producing most excellent results.
In the realm of diagnosis there has also been very great improvement. On the early and accurate diagnosis of disease depends the treatment and, very largely, the outcome. In that field science has made great advances. It has given us the X-ray, which is of inestimable value. The microscope has made possible numerous refinements of diagnosis applying to many diseases, and is of the greatest benefit in the cure of the patient. As to treatment, there have also been great changes both in methods and in instruments used. In the treatment of tuberculosis and pneumonia the idea of the patient getting plenty of fresh air has saved many lives. Then take cancer; the discovery that radium, properly used in properly selected cases, is of great benefit to those suffering from cancer has been one of the most important and most beneficial discoveries ever made in connection with that disease. Another discovery, per-82582-12
fected in our own country, was the use of insulin, which was developed by Doctor Banting in Toronto. A comparison of figures showing the deaths from coma in diabetes is instructive, and shows the great advances that have been made in the treatment of that disease. In 1898, which was long before insulin was heard of, sixty per cent of those dying from diabetes went into a coma before death. The coma is the toxic stage, and in those days there was practically no hope of getting a patient out of that condition. In the period from 1930 to 1933, however, less than five per cent of those dying went into that incurable stage of coma, and as the use of this important medical agent is further perfected undoubtedly the results will be even more beneficial.
So in those three great departments of medicine, prevention, diagnosis and treatment, great changes for the better have been made. The advances I have mentioned have almost revolutionized the practice of medicine. My father was a doctor; I have always lived in a doctor's home, and I know that in the old days practically all the medical attention given throughout the country was given by the general practitioner. That situation has greatly changed, however; it has become almost impossible for the general practitioner to keep himself acquainted with all the new products and inventions of science. Just here, perhaps, I might digress to pay a tribute to one general practitioner who has brought high honour to himself, to his profession and to Canada. I refer to Doctor Dafoe, of northern Ontario. One day he went out on a case which appeared to be a very ordinary incident in the life of a country doctor, but he conducted himself so well that he earned a victory never before earned by an obstetrician in the history of the world. To bring those five northern babies up to the age of seven or eight months, as he has done, has been a wonderful feat, and as Minister of Health I wish to express to Doctor Dafoe the great admiration of the medical profession as a whole for the wonderful work he has done.
These new conditions that I have indicated have necessitated new agencies in dealing with disease. One that I might mention is the public health nurse. In most of our cities and towns at the present time we have the public health nurse. In Ontario part of her salary is paid by the province and part by the municipality. She pays regular visits to the schools and makes suggestions as to whether or not the children need treatment. The work that has been done by these nurses has been very beneficial and very protective.



Health Policy-Mr. Sutherland
I take it that the mover of the resolution would like to see something done along these lines, only to a greater extent.
Then there is another public body which renders useful service to the sick throughout the country; I refer to the Victorian Order of Nurses. I think perhaps from a doctor's standpoint the Victorian Order of Nurses does more good and is of more actual benefit to the sick people than any other similar institution in the country. Personally I regard that body as doing very excellent work throughout the country.
Then in certain parts of the country we have health units, which were mentioned by the hon. member who moved the resolution. This is another means of medical activity which I value very highly. In a general way the object of a health unit is to extend public health activities to rural districts, so that they really have a clinic available to them to give advice on medical subjects, principally in the preventive sphere. They educate the public with regard to the best methods of preventing disease. As they move about the homes they see improvements that might be made, perhaps in connection with drainage or something along that line, and they also have to do with the children both of the pre-school and the school age. They visit the schools and examine conditions there; they also examine the younger children and give advice to the parents as to what might be done for the children. Another important function of the health clinic is the education of mothers, both before children are born and in the postnatal period, as to the care that should be exercised. That work, in certain parts of the country, has had wonderful results. Probably the province of Quebec has made greater advances in connection with health units than have been made in any other part of the country, and I think that province is to be congratulated on the way it has supported the movement and on the benefits that have accrued from it.
Those associated with these health units also carry on a campaign against the various contagious diseases and, in cooperation with the doctors of the community, epidemics can be stamped out much more quickly than was possible in the past. They also have to do with the distribution of sera and vaccines. They inoculate the children against smallpox and diphtheria, and in some parts of the country, as a result of the work of these health clinics, practically all the children have been inoculated against that disease, with most beneficial results.
The great strides that have been made in connection with medicine have gradually made the people feel that they must cooperate in
(Mr. Sutherland.]
order to get the full benefit from these advances, since a serious and prolonged disease is very costly. Perhaps the first step in the way of cooperation in order to secure medical attention was made by the fraternal societies. In practically every town and village throughout Ontario there were one or two fraternal societies which, as a part of the benefits extended to their members, included the free services of a doctor. Sometimes that worked well, sometimes not so well, but it indicated the effort being made by the people to cooperate along these lines. Then various large industries throughout the country started schemes of mutual assistance, the workman putting up so much of the money and the industry supplying the remainder. In that way the members of the industry, the workmen, had an opportunity to get medical assistance without the financial burden being too heavy.
Great advances have been made both in the number of hospitals in Canada and the efficiency with which they have helped to combat disease. Most hon. members can recall the time when there were very few hospitals; particularly those living in the rural sections found it difficult to obtain hospital treatment. To-day with the exception of some few rural districts the country is well provided with hospitals. At the present time there are in Canada 893 modern fully equipped hospitals with 87,645 beds. The hospitals are of various types, including maternity, pediatric, orthopaedic, isolation, and other kinds which I shall not take the time to mention. In addition we have in Canada to-day 59 mental hospitals. The hon. member who preceded me mentioned preventive treatment in mental cases. May I say to him that that is a science the study of which to-day is more or less in its infancy but undoubtedly there is a great opportunity for further research. Constant effort is being made to treat mental troubles in their early stages. Every person connected with the medical profession is hoping that work along that line will be carried to a successful conclusion.
Throughout the country, beginning in the small municipalities, we have boards of health. In the small municipalities the boards of health are sometimes good, sometimes not so good, and in my judgment sometimes useless. Particularly in townships where by law they are forced to have a medical health officer I believe a great deal of money is wasted. In many instances they have some official who is medical health officer in name only, who gets practically no salary and who cannot be expected to do and in fact does not do very much.
I am of the opinion that there must be a development such as was mentioned by the

Health Policy-Mr. Sutherland
hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) and to which I have referred, namely that of health units. I believe that if the money which has been spent for the various township bodies in western Ontario had been lumped and doctors and nurses had been employed the effect would have been much better.
On the other hand in our larger cities we have some first class boards of health doing creditable work. Many people say that the city of Toronto has the best health department in the world. If that is not quite so it is undoubtedly true that Toronto ranks very high in health protection. Many people who are interested in preventive medicine have come from different parts of the world to that city in order to learn firsthand their method of working. The provinces are doing excellent work, some better than others. The hon. member has referred to Alberta; I am in a position to know that the health departments in that province are doing splendid wTork and are preparing to take still further steps to improve the conditions under which their citizens are living. Most of the provinces are to be congratulated upon the excellent work they have been doing.
I should like now to refer to the subject of periodical health examination. If it were possible to have people take those examinations the results would be excellent, but of the 245 members who compose this House of Commons I venture to suggest no more than ten per cent have an annual examination, or even one every two years. They do not lack the money, but they do lack interest. I believe that is characteristic of well-to-do people throughout the country. In general practice I have found that there are very few who make a practice of periodical examinations. I am convinced that such examinations would be of the greatest benefit but we cannot go out on the street and force people to go into doctors' offices for examination. They 'have to use their own common sense, and if they do not their action will be to their own disadvantage. Were it possible to have periodical examinations certain diseases w-ould be discovered through diagnosis.
I have mentioned certain diseases in connection with which great improvement has been shorvn. There are others, however, in which the figures are not so encouraging. In 1926 there were 7.C14 deaths from cancer whereas in 1933 there were 10.646. Cancer is one disease which if situated in certain parts of the body could be discovered by means of periodical health examinations. Particularly is that true of external cancers, wdiere cures 92582-12^
could be effected if treatment were begun earlier. It is largely due to the fact that the disease is not found early enough that the death rate is gradually mounting higher and higher. In the year 1926 there were 11.415 deaths from heart disease, whereas in 1933 there were 15.483. These figures show a very great increase. Heart disease is another ailment which could be discovered in its early state and treatment or suggestions as to mode of life given which would be found very beneficial. Last summer in nearly every paper one read he would find an account of some well known person who had dropped dead on a golf course, or on the street or at home. Some of those men were in the prime of life, between the ages of forty-five and fifty. Undoubtedly these ailments had developed insidiously but could have been discovered had there been periodical health examinations. I cannot urge too strongly my approval of the hon. member's observations concerning the necessity for such examinations.
Despite all the advances in the science of medicine and despite the splendid service medical practice can give, the difficulty is to make those advances available to the great masses of the people. I believe that is the gist of the hon. member's resolution; undoubtedly he would like to see measures taken to make the results of modern medical science available to every one. That brings before us the question of state medicine. As there are some who entertain doubts as to the meaning of that term, perhaps I might read what the Canadian Medical Association believes to be the purpose of state medicine. I quote from a report made by a committee of doctors:
The ultimate purpose of any plan is to make available for every Canadian the full benefits of curative and preventive medicine, irrespective of individual ability to pay, and, at the same time, to assure the practitioners of medicine and others associated in the provision of medical care a reasonable remuneration for their services.
The purpose first stated in this quotation is, I think, what we are all aiming at, namely to make the full benefits of curative and preventive medicine available to all. But in any move of the kind which a government, either federal or provincial, might make, it is essential to consider the matter and discuss it with the medical associations, because on their cooperation the success of the whole thing depends. The Canadian Medical Association, realizing that this subject was becoming a very important one to the provinces, to the dominion and to all our citizens,



Health Policy-Mr. Sutherland
appointed not long ago a committee to go thoroughly into the matter. The committee has made a comprehensive report considering the subject, I think, from every angle, and the present situation is this:	The Canadian
Medical Association has sent that plan to each provincial body, and the provincial bodies in turn have sent it to every individual doctor throughout the country for his observations and any suggestions he desires to make upon it. The comments and suggestions which the individual doctors make will come back through the provincial bodies to the Canadian Medical Association and from their replies and the original plan it will be possible for the association to evolve some plan which they can recommend to some government. It does seem to me that until that plan is evolved and ready to be presented to a government, steps should not be taken in the matter, because there is no use going into a thing of this kind at random and without seeing just where you are going. Of course it is the desire of all governments to get all the information they can along these lines.
One part of the motion which the hon. member for Battle River has presented has to do with cooperation between the dominion and the provinces. We have cooperation at present along those lines. That is the policy of the federal Department of Health, to cooperate in every way with the provinces. We have at the present time the Dominion Council of Health which consists of the chief medical officer of health for each of the .provinces, together with a representative of labour, a representative of agriculture, a representative of the urban and rural women's organizations, one scientific adviser, and the deputy minister of the Department of Pensions and National Health. The council is brought to Ottawa twice a year at the expense of the dominion government, when they go thoroughly into the various problems that each has met with in his own part of the country. One of those meetings has been held since I came to this department, and I know 'that it was very beneficial. Some of the representatives of the provinces who were present have written that they considered the meeting this year of great benefit to them and to the people of their provinces. That activity will be continued, of course, and we expect great benefits to come from it.
But there is another step which I intend to take. It is my purpose to invite at some mutually convenient time within the next two or three months the ministers of health of the various provinces to come to Ottawa and discuss with me their problems, with the
[Mr. Sutherland.!
idea, just as the hon. member for Battle River suggests, of furthering cooperation between the federal and provincial bodies, because I am firmly convinced that any advances that are to be made will be made only along the lines of that cooperation. In extending that invitation to the provincial ministers of health I am in hopes that much good will come of our meeting.
I have endeavoured, Mr. Speaker, to give a general summary of the position in regard to public health in Canada at the present time. I have no objection to this motion passing because I am quite in sympathy with it. Our policy at the present time is cooperation and anything that I can do to further that policy I shall be only too glad to do during the time I hold this office.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I have been very much
interested in the speeches made by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) and the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Sutherland). The hon. member for Battle River deserves a great deal of credit for bringing before the House of Commons year after year this matter of a national health program.
Lest I forget it may I say at once that I do not agree with the statement made by the minister that the Canadian Medical Association should be the one to evolve a health policy, or that the federal government should make no move until the medical association had decided what should be done. I do not think that is so at all. In the first place, doctors are trained at very great expense to the provinces, because the universities are certainly not self-sustaining. In a measure doctors are public servants; they have shown that magnificently during these trying four years. I am sure they can offer valuable suggestions, but I do not for a moment think that the federal government should wait for the pronouncement of the medical association. The federal government itself should evolve a health policy, whether it be one with many branches, such as health insurance and county health units, or whatever it may be. The federal government, I say, should do the evolving, perhaps with the cooperation of the provinces and the Canadian Medical Association.
In my opinion the main reason why medical science is not available to all the people is the lack of money on the part of the people. I notice in this little pamphlet which the Canadian Social Hygiene Council has sent to us, entitled Canada at War, the statement is

Health Policy-Miss Macphail
made that public health officials agree that sickness costs the people of Canada over $311,000,000 a year, and that almost nine-tenths of this represents a direct charge upon the individual. Well, I think the direct charge upon the individual is greater than the individual can bear, and people are going without the benefits of medical science simply because they cannot afford to pay for it. It causes the death of many of them, which I suppose is just as much expense, but the particular individual affected does not need to worry about that expense.
In confirmation of that, I notice that in an article in the Canadian Home Journal of May, 1934, Norma Phillips Muir makes this statement with reference to maternal mortality :
One doctor whose professional life has been pretty well given to studying public health and preventive medicine has stated that actually there is no maternal mortality problem in Canada-that it is a problem of dollars and cents because the deaths can to a very great extent be prevented if the pregnant woman and medical and nursing services are brought together.
I think what is true in regard to maternal mortality is true also of many diseases. The very rich can afford to have care for the prevention and cure of disease whenever they desire. It is also true that the very poor in cities like Toronto, as mentioned by the Minister of Health, are given very, good care indeed. But there is a large middle class between the rich and the poor who actually cannot afford to have good care when sickness comes. I know there are splendid hospitals and doctors and nurses, but what does that matter when the people cannot get into the hospital without guaranteeing payment, and when they have not the money to pay for care in the hospitals? In the city of Owen Sound people have actually been kept waiting on the steps of the hospital until the hospital authorities could be assured there was going to be full pay for their hospitalization. Everyone in this house knows of innumerable instances where people have not been able to secure hospital treatment or the care of a nurse in their own home simply because they could not afford to pay for it. There are hundreds and thousands of nurses out of work in Canada who would be only too glad to take care of the sick, as the sick would be only too glad to be taken care of. But there must be dollars to bridge the chasm between unemployed nurses and uncared for sick.
I was very glad to notice that Ontario has this year established its first health unit,
as reported in the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, December 13. That unit will cover the counties of Stormont, Glengarry, Prescott and Russell. The Rockefeller foundation is making a grant of $33,000 and the unit will employ five nurses. The administrative officer and his nursing staff of five will conduct health administration, education, sanitation, public health nursing and the control of communicable diseases. At present 2,000 children in the four municipalities have received dental attention and one hundred per cent have received immunization from diphtheria. After the three year period the grant of $33,000 ceases and the cost must be borne by the counties and the provincial authorities.
I am particularly concerned about having county health units in all counties because they can do a great deal to prevent disease and I think it is better both from the point of view of human happiness and from the economic standpoint. In the long run it costs less and certainly people are much happier when well. In my opinion a great deal can be done by preventive medicine. Perhaps I might take a moment to say what has been done in Owen Sound particularly, through the work of Doctor Murray, who has devoted his attention to prevention. He has made a particular study of preventive medicine. In Owen Sound they now have free clinics for the early diagnosis of tuberculosis and for venereal disease. They have a free child clinic and last year they had a free dental clinic for school children. It is interesting to know that two or three years ago the death rate in Owen Sound among children under one year of age was the lowest in Ontario and the second in Canada, being excelled by Victoria, British Columbia.
Everyone interested in this matter feels that other municipalities could obtain similar results if they followed similar methods. I should like very much to have a county health unit in Grey county, for this reason particularly, that that county is as beset with contagious diseases and other ills as any other county and suffers in addition the disability of goitre to a greater extent than in any other county. I said once in public that fifty per cent of the people in Grey county suffered from goitre in some form and I was laughed to scorn. Well, Doctor Murray of Owen Sound and Doctor Carefoot of Markdale made a careful analysis, each over a certain area, and they found that it went well over fifty per cent; they said that the figure I gave was too low. And yet that terrific responsibility must be carried by the people

Health Policy-Mr. Morand
of Grey county. It is entirely unfair and, what is more, they are not able to do it. From my own personal experience this year among my own friends I know of at least ten people in the late fifties who no doubt died of goitre. Possibly on the death certificate goitre would not be given as the cause of death, but the doctors attending them assured me that it was, having resulted in a heart condition which was the actual cause of death, or in an anaemic condition, or in some other of the complications that ensue. Unless you attend a great many meetings, picnics and one thing and another and see people in large numbers you will not believe how prevalent it is. I do feel that it is not fair to ask the individual to pay for the treatment of a disease which is caused by deficiency in the soil of the district. If we are to have health units in any part of Ontario it is not unreasonable to urge that Grey county and possibly Bruce as well should be the district in which experimentation is carried on.
I have asked the federal Department of Health as well as the provincial government to make a survey of the county to see whether or not goitre is as terrible there as we who live in the county think it is, but in both cases an investigation of any sort has been refused. If the governments in Canada are not going to take the responsibility who is to assume it? One would be almost humiliated to go to New York and ask the Rockefeller people to make the survey, because surely it is a responsibility that lies within this country. In supporting this general resolution asking that the federal government adopt a definite health policy to be carried out in cooperation with the provincial governments I am not thinking only of this one particular area, but I am thinking of it especially because the need is so great.


Hon. R. D. MORAND (East Essex):: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I congratulate the mover of this motion (Mr. Spencer) on the humanitarian stand he has taken and on the very interesting and definite method he proposes of correlating the work of medicine in Canada.
Medicine has made rapid strides when one looks back over history and realizes that it has grown to a very comprehensive science from early beginnings of empiricism and a great deal of superstition. It has been certainly an individual science, and its advance has been entirely an individual matter. It is an individual type of occupation and consequently the organization of medicine has

probably not advanced or kept step with the organization of other fields of activity.
On could very well divide the value of medicine into two distinct and different fields. First of all there is the preventive and then the curative. Then again one could divide preventive medicine into two distinct subdivisions, that which applies particularly to the public or to the state and the community, such as the control of contagious diseases and the control of those diseases that come under the supervision of public health officials, and then the preventive measures which are entirely individual, in relation to those diseases that are not communicable but if taken in hand early may be prevented from the natural consequences which follow unless proper treatment is given.
In the first division, diseases that are communicable and generally within the community, most of the necessity is not so much within the field of medicine as it is within that of education. It is education that is needed to teach the people the value of preventives now at hand. Education is necessary to teach them how to prevent some very simple conditions and I was very much interested in listening to the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) when she spoke of thyroid in her particular county. It seems to me that that trouble, its cause and prevention, are now so generally known and the prevention is so simple, that I am amazed that within that county the authorities now in charge have not seen fit to advise or educate their people in the very simple matter of taking of a few drops of iodine once or twice a month, which would entirely prevent the condition which now exists. I shall not attempt to enumerate all the very many good works that have already been accomplished by preventive means, such as the control of typhoid, scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and other communicable diseases which to-day have almost disappeared and would be still further controlled as a result of a simple and general education among the people.
The part of preventive medicine from which it seems to be the most difficult to secure the maximum benefit is that which applies to the individual himself. The minister a few minutes ago spoke about heart diseases and other conditions. Those are conditions which are essentially individual and the question is not one of cost; it is a question not of necessity but of driving home to the people the importance of constant supervision by their medical men. On the other hand, the part that interests me most is the securing of the maximum benefit that is available within the

Health Policy-Mr. Mitchell
science of medicine to those who are unable to pay for it. Strange as it may seem, it is not the poorest who are unable to pay; it is that large class of people between those on relief, those in abject poverty, and the very rich. Medicine has evolved from the simple application of one man's view, one man's ability, one man's science. To-day we have available in the various sciences-electricity, mathematics, medicine, and so forth-large laboratories and expensive equipment, and in the field of medical science these developments have increased the cost of medicine, the cost of treatment and cure and, more particularly, the cost of diagnosis, beyond the ability to pay of the average man who is trying to carry on for himself.
As regards those who are poor, I was astounded to learn that in some hospitals they are permitted to stand on the steps because they cannot pay. In twenty years' rather active practice I have yet to find a hospital refuse to take a patient because he could not pay. But there is a large class of people who, because of small salaries, because they are anxious to pay their way, find it impossible or are very reluctant to spend the necessary money to secure the diagonsis and the maximum that science has to give. X-ray is very expensive; laboratory tests are expensive; heart treatment and heart diagnosis instruments are to-day quite expensive. Day after day people come into our offices where the aid of these branches of science is necessary to make a complete diagnosis and to give them the maximum that is available within the science of medicine. These people cannot or feel they should not spend the amount necessary to secure the benefit of the science, consequently the maximum benefits of the science are available only to those who are very poor, whom the state now takes care of, or to those who are wealthy and to whom cost makes no difference. But the very large mass of the people, probably the most important class in the community, find themselves only too often unable to secure the maximum benefit that they should receive. This is rather discouraging to a medical man who from day to day has in his office patients who are unable to secure the full benefit that science can offer. Organization in medicine is undoubtedly necessary at this time. Organization has taken place in every other field of activity, but medicine continues very much in its individual application of the best that each medical man has to offer. Some day within the not very far distant future I hope to see some scheme evolved for that class of people who, too often optimistic in the belief that
physical ills will not affect them, and probably because of low salaries or wages unable to set anything aside, find themselves confronted when they least expect it with large bills, perhaps at a time when the head of the house has no earning capacity. I hope to see a scheme put into operation whereby men in receipt of earnings under a certain amount per annum may pool a part of their earnings in order to create a fund, with the aid of the state and the employer, to enable them to secure the maximum that medical science has to offer them. Further, I would like to see them secure aid when they are ill so that they may feel a sense of security during that most trying of times, a security which comes from the knowledge that if they wish to take advantage of it they can avail themselves of what is in store for them within the field of medical science.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have had some experience in this matter, having been a member of the hospital board in my own municipality for the past ten years, and also a member of the board of health for many years. This question is being very actively discussed throughout the North American continent.
I was amused by the observation made by the minister that it would be necessary to consult the doctors before any scheme of this description could be launched. If I remember rightly, when Mr. Lloyd George introduced his health insurance scheme in Great Britain, the greatest opposition came from the doctors. Those who have traced the history of its development will well remember the indignation meetings held by the doctors of Great Britain in opposition to the scheme; yet to-day the selfsame people who opposed it so violently are those who admit its soundness and its practicability in that great country. In fact, thev have gone so far that in the last three months I understand the medical men of Great Britain have affiliated with the British Trades Union Congress. I hope we shall live to see the day when such a departure is made in this dominion.
Quite recently in the United States they appointed a committee on costs of medical care, which was aided by finances supplied by the Rockefeller or the Carnegie foundation. That committee, composed of representatives of the doctors, of labour, of the teaching profession and others sat for five years and brought in a report in which they eulogized the experiment being made in Saskatchewan in connection with what I suppose may be

Health Policy-Mr. Mitchell
called socialized medicine. In their third recommendation they say:
The committee recommends that the costs of medical care be placed on a group payment basis, through the use of insurance, through the use of taxation, or through the use of both these methods. This is not meant to preclude the continuation of medical service provided on an individual fee basis for those who prefer the present method. Cash benefits, i.e. compensation for wage loss due to illness, if and when provided, should be separate and distinct from medical services.
So we can see how in the country to the south they are progressing towards a policy of collectivization in the treatment of the sick.
Two years ago a commission appointed by the government of British Columbia recommended a scheme of health insurance in that province. And we have this committee of the Canadian Medical Association, spoken of by the minister this evening, which is giving leadership to the various medical societies throughout the dominion. This is all in line with a recognition of the responsibility of the community as such for the treatment of the sick. In connection with preventive medicine the state has gone into the field in the matter of insane, and venereal disease, diphtheria, tuberculosis and many other diseases have been practically taken out of the hands of the general medical profession and their treatment placed upon a state basis.
One of the greatest problems at the moment, particularly in connection with this depression, is seen for instance in a city like Toronto where the medical needs of 26,000 families are being cared for by the municipality. It is unfair to expect the general practitioner to render his services on the basis that prevails at present in many localities, that is, free of charge, although I know that in accordance with the traditions of the profession it has been customary for him to give those very necessary services wherever they were required by those unable to pay. What the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Mo-rand) said this evening is quite true. In my community I know of no instance where any individual has been denied treatment in any of our hospitals through lack of financial resources, whether it be the municipal hospital or St. Joseph's, which is of course a sectarian hospital. I think it is a fair observation to make that the indigent patient in the hospitals of this country receives treatment on a par with the wealthiest, because we insist that the surgeons on the staffs of civic hospitals shall be at the top of their profession in their respective districts. These indigent mt.ients do not have to take the IMr. Mitchell.J
chance, like the great middle class, of getting, maj? I gay, an inferior grade of practitioner. The municipality I come from insists that the best in surgery shall be given to those unable to pay. Nor is it fair and equitable that those who are able to pay should have placed upon them the burden of the care of the indigent. At present they have to bear the expense in a broad way of those unable to pay. Some policy should be worked out whereby the expense is placed broadly on the whole community, and I know of no better system than that set up in (Great Britain and in other countries in Europe to deal with the problem.
It seems to me also that having regard to the work being done in our hospital centres, particularly during this depression, the personal touch of the family physician is more or less lost. Under a system of health insurance there would be a movement back to the family physician. The present practice is too mechanized. There is no substitute in the field of medicine for the understanding and care that can come about only through the long continued association of the family physician with his people.
_ As a matter of equity the medical profession should not be asked to render the enormous services they are being asked to render to-day absolutely free of charge. I have often said that medicine stands to-day in the same relationship to the community as schools did a century ago. In those days in regard to education you paid for what you got. In the evolution of our civilization and the desire of our people for a general educational system the responsibility for education was taken over by the state. I believe that is an inevitable development in regard to medical service in its broadest aspect. I do not mean that everyone should be covered by an insurance system. I think the hon. member for East Essex expressed the idea correctly when he said that that great group in between should have facilities placed at their disposal whereby the tremendous expense involved by ill health should be borne in a cooperative way. I suppose we all know of many families in which a major illness has been a financial tragedy, and any policy that the government or the medical profession can set up that will eliminate the fear of that condition from the lives of that great body of people who like to pay for the services they receive would be a distinct advance. I do not believe that any nation can be built on "something for nothing." A sense of obligation to meet their financial responsibilities has been one of the great driving forces in the development of this nation.

Health Policy-Mr. Sproule
I was glad to hear the minister make the observations he did, that the federal government in connection with the provincial governments and these agencies of public opinion, in combination with the medical profession, should study this question deeply. They can rest assured that the labour forces of the dominion will lend their sympathetic aid to the formulation of a policy not only in the interests of the people but also in the best interest of the medical profession itself, which in the past, and particularly during this depression, has rendered such fine service to the Canadian people.


Mr. J. T. SPROULE (East Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take any part in this discussion, but after listening to my friend the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand) and the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) I wish to say a few words. Some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) touch closely the situation in my own section. I think the hon. member for East Essex was correct when he said that it was not the poorest class nor the richest class that was neglected; there is the in-between class who feel themselves hardly able to pay the doctors' bills. I believe in many cases they neglect their health simply because they remember the last doctor's bill they received, and they remember having to sell the last cow, the last pig or something else in order to get the money with which to pay it. They feel, and rightly, that they should keep the doctor paid up, because they do not know how soon they may need his aid again.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the medical men; I understand that some of them in Toronto last year, after spending a great deal of time and money on their education, had to go on relief. I hope that was not true, but I remember having heard it. On the other hand I know that in the rural district from which I come they bitterly complain that the bills in many cases are too high. The charge now is $5 a call, where possibly when that man was young the charge was only 81 or $2 for the same trip. The farmer did not mind so much when he could sell a bushel of wheat for a dollar and a cow or horse for $100; he walked to the telephone and called the doctor without hesitation. Unfortunately to-day most of the farmers do not have telephones. At one time they were considered necessities, but now they are considered more in the way of luxuries. Perhaps that is something else that might be looked into; to-day the cost of a telephone is the same as it 'was in the palmy days.
There is no doubt that the poorer class can get medical assistance quite easily, because the health officer or medical board has authority to act, but that is not the case in regard to the man in between, who is not in a position to ask for assistance or who does not feel like asking for it. As a result he neglects the trouble for a day or two too long. The poor people who have been on relief call up the reeve of the municipality, and he realizes that he must take care of them. The other man, however, is not so fortunate; the reeve has to call a council meeting to find out whether or not he has authority to act, and then the chances are that the council will decide that the man can sell another cow or pig and pay the doctor, so they take no action. So I think the sooner something is done along the lines set out in this resolution the better it will be for all concerned.
Just here I would like to say a word about the poor children who are not properly clothed to go to school. Their clothing is not sufficient; their shoes are thin, and in rainy weather their feet must be wet when they get to school. Most of the school teachers take wonderful care of the children, providing them with hot lunches, and so on, but they should not 'be required to do that.
I was very much amused at some of the discussion in connection with the building scheme that was under consideration this evening. When you really consider it, many of the cities are not nearly so badly off as the small rural communities are. I think perhaps the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) put the -matter rather well when she said that while many of the homes looked bad enough from the road, they look worse when you get inside. Hon. members who come from rural districts and who are acquainted with these conditions will agree when I say that, while the health officer perhaps should go to these homes and see that they are kept in a healthier condition, that health officer, in order to do so, would have to pass many other homes of the same class, and it is hardly worth his while. It is too bad the houses and outbuildings have fallen into such disrepair, and it is too bad that something cannot be done about it.
There has been a great deal of agitation in connection with the construction of public buildings, but I can say that the agriculturists at present are more in need of relief than any other class. If they have their health they can put up with a great deal, and I hope something can be done along the line of this resolution. As a rule very little public money is spent in the rural districts; generally it goes to the larger centres, which have better
Health Policy-Mr. Sproule

representation in this house. Rural constituencies cover large areas; most of them do not need wharves or large hotels or anything of that kind, and the result is that when the estimates are brought down they contain nothing for the rural constituencies. You look in the blue book to see how much is going to be spent in your district, but you cannot find the name of the place from which you come, so you know that no public money will be spent there. Then when you look around to see where the money is to be spent you find that large amounts are to go to the more thickly populated districts. In most of the rural districts when they speak of money they speak of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but when we come here we speak about millions of dollars. I can say frankly that the man on the back concession does not understand language of that kind; he does not know what it means. If you tell him that he could not live long enough to count it all, after he considers that statement for some time he begins to realize just what it means. Many times I have thought about some of these hotels that have been built here and there, costing millions of dollars, That money would go a long way in preserving the lives of our poor children who are so badly neglected. The chances are that when that hotel is built it will lose a quarter of a million dollars or so a year, and even that amount would do a great deal of good if it were devoted to the welfare of the children. I do say it is very hard to get anything in a rural constituency, and it is hard to tell a man who comes from the city how much in need the people are on these back concessions.
I remember the occasion when I attended the good roads convention in Toronto. I have been a director of the good roads association for some time, and this year I happen to be president. When elected president one of the directors came to me and said, " You ire the man who came in here twelve or fifteen years ago and began talking about growing beets and, because of the mud, having to draw them out a quarter of a ton at a time. Have you those mud roads down there yet?" I replied, " They have been very much improved "-and that is a fact. In good times it was easy to get improvements, but when prices dropped and times were not so good we found it more difficult to get improvements. I realize that we are living in one of the most fortunate countries in the world; we are making a speedy recovery, but I do think it is up to the people to realize what those on the back concessions require. It is very difficult to impress mem-
bers of the House of Commons with what their requirements are, because the average member is not aware of them.
Although the hon. member for Southeast Grey and I do not agree on many questions I will say that she and some other hon. members in that corner of the house have tried on many occasions to stress the needs of the back concessions, and sometimes we have found it difficult to make our wants known. I do not think most people realize how much improvements are needed. It is the duty of the man who comes from the rural district to try to fight his battle as best he can, and if we do not get results as soon as we would like we may get a better footing a little later on.
I am in agreement with other hon. members who have stated that health is a most necessary factor in the enjoyment' of life, and I do hope that the present resolution is not dropped. I must say however that I cannot altogether agree with some observations of medical men. In my view the reeves of some municipalities could tell more about actual requirements than some medical men. I do not suppose many medical men will agree with me when I make the statement I am about to make, but I believe I am showing all due respect and am fair to that profession when I observe that there should be some way of knowing what a medical man will charge when he is called. When a person on a back concession calls a doctor he is wondering all the time how much he will be charged. He may be in such doubt that he will delay telephoning or sending word because he wonders if he will ever be able to pay his doctor's bill. It seems to me there ought to be some way of knowing. When we call a taxi we have some idea what the charge will be. Turning again to professional men, we have a good idea what a lawyer will charge us and if we are not satisfied we are free to tax his bill.


Mr. COTNAM:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Thomas Sproule: I do not know whether
it would be wise, because possibly I could not answer it; however I will if I can.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: When the hon. member
makes the statement he does, he cannot be aware that there is a definite schedule of fees which has been adopted by the Ontario Medical Association and is available for the study and observation of the hon. member or of any person in this province at any time or in any place. When he states that a person cannot know what the fee will be-

Business of the House


Pierre Édouard Blondin: May I point out that the hon. member is hardly in order.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I should like to give the hon. member a little information.


John Thomas Sproule: I am quite content to listen to the information and am very pleased to get it. Some people have had the experience of calling medical men in our section of the country and have been surprised when they have received their bills. I know of one man who asked his medical man for an itemized bill and received a reply to this effect: "The itemized bill will be $15 more because you did not pay it yesterday." I am wondering if there is any possible way of being certain what we must pay. In my constituency I know of a case where a poor lad ran into an electric wire and was badly burned. Hon. members know that the municipalities carry insurance. As a result of his burns some insurance was coming to him, but when his doctor's bill was received he found he had a very little left. The case was taken to court and the judge reduced the fee by S200, but I think if another $200 had been deducted the doctor would still have been paid too much. However, I am very pleased to receive the information from the hon. member and shall be happy to take it back to my friends.
As the representative of the constituency of East Lambton I am going to try to bring the grievances of my constituents before this chamber and make an effort to have some of them ironed out. I do not know how you can check up on a doctor's bill. He may make a dozen calls on a trip, and possibly he may charge $2 for each call. I am not stating the doctors are dishonest; as a matter of fact I believe they are honest, but-


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Just the same as if you had a hundred cows on your round.


John Thomas Sproule: Well, I would like to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will take the business on the order paper, except the order standing in my name which I do not propose to proceed with to-morrow. If government business is disposed of we will give the opportunity to private members which was taken from them on Monday to proceed with their notices of motion.


William Lyon 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?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which one is that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The one relating to the establishment of an employment and social insurance commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not propose to
proceed with it to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But that is the most important of any.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be, but I do not
propose to proceed with it until Monday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend if the bill related to this resolution is drafted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The bill has been printed in complete form for over a month; it has been under consideration by the cabinet on more than one occasion and it will be considered in detail on Saturday. Some amendments have been made consequent upon an actuarial statement by Mr. Wolfenden and others. Do not run away with the idea that this legislation has not been prepared. It was prepared in consequence of information received in England something over a year ago, and we have gone on continuously improving it in the light of the knowledge we have received. So I am sorry to say the right hon. gentleman cannot make any capital out of that. It is sad, isn't it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What puzzles 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.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wanted to have my
resolution just where it is now so that I could proceed with the bill. I took steps necessary to do so, and I propose to continue to do so.


Ross Wilfred Gray: That old order has not
changed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, and it won't, either; don't make any mistake about that. I am still in control of this house; get that in your mind.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Doukhobor Prisoners
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 25, 1935