[Stage Direction]
Report covering branch line construction of the Canadian National Railways to December 31, 1929.-Mr. Crerar.

Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I desire to make a correction
in an answer I made to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) on Friday last in connection with the taxation of oil companies. I was in error in that answer. Taxation of oil companies was decided upon in July, 1929. The companies were notified that taxation would begin on the 1st January, 1930, and I am informed by the department that practically all the oil companies have made their initial payments. I was in error in connection with the proposal to impose a royalty on gas. That we had decided to leave inasmuch as the time for the return of the natural resources was so close.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CLARK:: 1.	As a result of reconnaissances and investigations made with regard to navigation in the Hudson bay is it possible to give an estimate of the period during which navigation is open?
2.	During what months is navigation ordinarily open in the Hudson bay with access to Fort Churchill and Port Nelson?


Mr. CRERAR:: With respect to the probable length of the navigation season through Hudson bay and strait, no conclusive data is as yet available. During the last three seasons the river at Churchill has opened and closed on the fol-

Questions
lowing dates: 1927: June 20-November 3; 1928: June 19-October 11; 1929: June 20- November 2.
This does not mean that the route would be completely available between those dates, as ice frequently remains off shore for several weeks after the opening of the river. Neither does it mean that the route would not be available to a later date by the use of icebreakers to be provided.
The Hudson strait expedition, of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, reported that vessels passed through the strait inbound on July 19, 1927, and July 21, 1928, and that ice commenced to form at Nottingham island on November 16, 1927, in which year there were 120 dtays, or practically four months, during which commercial vessels could have navigated with safety without the assistance of ice-breakers. The report points out that the observation of two seasons only is scarcely sufficient on which to base any accurate statement in regard to the opening, closing, or length of the season of navigation. The length of season will probably vary considerably from year to year, and what effect on the extension of the season may be exerted by the use of ice-breakers at both Churchill and Nottingham island, where ice first forms in the strait, remains to be demonstrated by actual experience on the opening of the route.


KIMBERLEY POST OFFICE SITE
Mr. ESLING:: 1.	Did the government purchase lots in Kimberley for a post office site?
2.	If so, how many lots were purchased and what was the price paid?
3.	From whom was the purchase made?
4.	Were these lots used for the purpose for which they were purchased, and, if not, why?
5.	Did the federal government exchange these lots for a site in another location?
6.	If so, on what basis was this exchange made?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Three lots, Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of block 7, for $5,500.
3.	George R. Leask.
4.	No. It was considered advisable to exchange this site for another property.
5.	Yes.
6.	An even exchange.


PEACE RIVER-FORT VERMILION TELEGRAPH LINE
Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	What is the mileage of telegraph line built in 1929 between Peace River an-d Fort Vermilion?
2.	What new telegraph offices have been established?
3.	What is the name of the operator in charge of each telegraph office?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Ninety-seven miles.
2.	Notikewin.
3.	Frederick Ediward Blewden.


AIR MAIL STATISTICS
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	What was the weight of mail carried over each air mail route in Canada during the year 1929?
2.	What was the total cost of conveying mail over each such air mail route during the year 1929?
3.	What was the amount of revenue from each such air mail route during the year 1929?
4.	What new air mail routes, if any, are
under consideration?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1-	Pounds
Montreal-Toronto	 7,724
Montreal-Albany (Southbound) .. .. 20,680 The Pas-Kississing (Superseded by Cranberry Portage and Kississing).. 36,338
Quebec-Seven Islands	 30,055
Seven Islands-Anticosti	 3,623
Mackenzie River service	 12,849
Leamington-Pelee island	 24,431
Narrow Lake-Sioux Lookout	 83,406
Moncton-Charlottetown	 59,712
Moncton-Magdalen islands	 7,444
Saint John-Halifax	 2,021
Ottawa-Montreal-Saint John	 3,161
Montreal-Detroit	 18,401
Toronto-Buffalo	 27,909
Montreal-Ottawa	 2,801
Montreal-Rimouski	 68,672
Bissett-Lac du Bonnet	 18,926
Special Flights	 918
Oskelaneo-Chibougamau	 447
Montreal-Saint John via Quebec and Moncton	 1,118
2.
Quebec-Seven Islands	$ 21,374 10
Seven Islands-Anticosti	
1,250	00Moncton-Magdalen island	
3,600	00Moncton-Charlottetown	
14,625	07Montreal-Toronto	
97,420	80Montreal-Detroit	
137,071	85Montreal-Albany	
71,387	50Montreal-Rimouski	
45,050	14Montreal-Ottawa	
6,912	50
Montreal-St. John via Quebec
& Moncton	$ 14,246 05
Chibougamau-Oskelaneo	
102	75Leamington-Pelee island	
4,016	50
Questions

Toronto-Buflalo	
12,673	00Bissett-Lac du Bonnet	
6,063	70Narrow Lake-Sioux Lookout.. ..	17,540	42Kississing-The Pas	
4,986	70Mackenzie river services	
13,970	26
Special flights-
Hamilton airport.. ..$	80 00
Moncton air pageant..	1,600 00
1,680 00
3.	As ordinary postage stamps may be used for prepayment of air mail fees it is not practicable to establish a system of accounting which will separate the revenue from air mail fees from the revenue from other classes of mail matter.
4.	No new routes have been definitely decided on but tentative plans have been made for a service connecting Montreal and the maritime provinces and for an experimental service Sud'bury to Winnipeg.


MONTREAL POST OFFICE SITE
Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: 1.	Has the government actually .procured a site for a new general post office in the city of Montreal?
2.	If so, what is the location of the premises purchased for such uee?
3.	When does the government contemplate the building of such new general post office?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


ST. GEORGE STREET, MONCTON, MAIL SERVICE
Mr. PRICE:: 1.	Has the postal department received a petition from the merchants of St. George street, Monoton, New Brunswick, requesting the department to increase the daily collection and distribution of mail on the said street from a two to a three times daily service?
2.	Has a survey been made with a view to inaugurating such service, and, if favourable consideration has been given the request, when will .the service begin?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A survey has been made and the matter is now under consideration.


APPOINTMENTS OF POSTMASTERS
Mr. MAYBEE:: 1.	How many recommendations for the appointment of postmasters were made by the Civil Service Commission during the year 1929?
2.	How many of such recommendations have been accepted and acted on by the Postmaster General, or his department?
3.	How many of such recommendations have been rejected?
[Mr. VeniotJ
4.	How many of such recommendations are still under consideration?
5.	What are the names and addresses of the parties so rejected, and the cause of rejection in each case?
6.	How many returned soldiers were appointed?
7.	How many returned soldiers were rejected?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	258.
2.	252.
3.	3.
4.	3.
5.	Name-Address-Reason:
Jas. K. Anderson, OAS., Oliver, B.C., unsuitability ;
Jas. H. M. Dryburgh, OAS., Knowlton,
P.Q., unsuitability;
Frank Lipka, Fosston, Sask., unsuitability.
6.	103.
7.	2.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed by the Postmaster General during the calendar year 1929?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the postmasters so dismissed?
3.	What was the reason for dismissal in each case?


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: For a copy of all tenders, advertisements, notices of acceptances or rejection of tenders, and memoranda relating to such tenders, for supply of coal to Royal Military College, for the year 1929-1930, passing between the government or any official of any department or representative of the government and any person or persons, or on behalf of such person or persons who tendered for such supply of coal.


Mr. ARTHURS:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, recommendations, or other correspondence regarding the position of postmaster at Restoule, Ontario.


James Arthurs: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, recommendations, or other correspondence regarding the position of postmaster at Pakesley, Ontario

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Church


James Arthurs: For a return showing all properties rented or leased by the government in Ottawa, and at what cost, showing: (a) the name of the property, (b) the amount of rent -paid, (c) the amount paid for maintenance, including heating, lighting, cleaning and other expense, for the year 1929, (d) taxeq paid or payable by the Crown for 1929, (e) the area occupied in square feet, buildings only.


Mr. KENNEDY:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between any person or persons and the Civil Service Commission and the Department of the Interior, and also of all correspondence exchanged between the various departments of the government, respecting the appointment of an agent in the sub-land agency of Debolt, in the province of Alberta.


James Arthurs: For a return showing the number of employees in each department of the government, inside service, with salaries, for the years 1926 and 1929.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: May I point out that this will involve considerable work and expenditure and all these details are in the Auditor General's report.


James Arthurs: They are not set forth except by departments and very indefinitely. I might point out to the minister that a similar report was brought down in 1926, with some speed even though the work might have been considerable.


Ernest Lapointe: I am not opposing the motion. I am merely pointing that out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, orders in council, and all other documents or proposals, exchanged between the government of Canada or any member thereof and the government of the United States, or any member thereof, or with Honourable Vincent Massey, Canadian Ambassador at Washington, in relation to the alleged establishment on the international boundary line of a large force of men to enforce United States laws. Also a copy of all correspondence with the government of Canada from Canadian citizens who claim they have been illegally fired on or injured by United States officers on the border during the past year, or from those protesting against such action.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no objection to this motion being carried, but it is subject to the condition that any correspondence with another government cannot be tabled except with the consent of that government, and also subject to the well-established practice that communications between a government and its representative abroad, especially on matters which are still pending, cannot be made public.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: With this reservation the motion is carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion being called:
Thomas Langton Church: That in the opinion of this house, immediate action should be taken, without further -unnecessary delays, to enter into a treaty with the government of the United States for the immediate development and generation of rvater-pow-er on the St. Lawrence river and its deepening and development in the interests of navigation, and that a great St. Lawrence waterway is an immediate and economic necessity for the welfare and best interests of Canada.
And that this -house is further of the opinion the the government should undertake the construction and operation of this canal as a public undertaking itself and the powrer incident herein should be developed and generated at cost by the government for the people under public ownership and not alienated to private interests for gain or exported for use outside Canada.


Thomas Langton Church: This motion has -been before the -house for five years. I understand that the Prime Minister is in Toronto to-day. I do not wish to take unfair advantage of his absence, but I would like some undertaking that this motion can be considered by the house on some near future occasion if not to-day. 1 brought this -motion up last session, but the Prime Minister asked that it stand in view of the fact that tihe government were going to conduct negotiations with the two provinces concerned, Ontario and Quebec, and I withdrew the motion. I understand t-hat one meeting of the provincial -premiers of Ontario and Quebec has already been held in Ottawa with no headway, and that negotiations are still proceeding. If this resolution is not put to-day, in view of the fact that it has already 'been called once, it will be dropped. I do not think I am taking any unfair advantage, therefore, of the Prime Minister's absence if I ask that an undertaking be given by the government that if the motion be not considered to-day an opportunity will be given to take it up later.
198	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Lapointe


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, the rule is that if the
motion is not proceeded with it is dropped. My hon. friend, however, would have the opportunity of moving to reinstate it on the order paper, but in that case it would go to the bottom of the list. I realize that it is rather unfortunate that the Prime Minister should not be here to-day, but I do not think his absence should deprive us of the pleasure of hearing my hon. friend. After he .has made his remarks, the debate can be adjourned, if necessary, and his resolution will then stand on the order paper as an adjourned motion.


Thomas Langton Church: That is hardly agreeable
to me. The Prime Minister asked me to let this motion stand two years ago, and I did so. Negotiations were held, and the result of those negotiations in 1929 was that the Seven Sisters falls power site and later the Beauharmois site were given away to favourites for private greed over parliament's helad. That was the first result of your negotiations: Exhibit No. 1, as it were, of these wonderful negotiations. I think the government have had too much latitude already in their inaction and delay.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think my hon. friend understood me. Far from depriving him of the opportunity of presenting his case, I am suggesting that he go on.


John Frederick Johnston: My hon. friend's motion is before the house, and I will now put it:
Resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, immediate action should be taken, without further unnecessary delays, to enter into a treaty with the government of the United States for the immediate development and generation of water-power on the St. Lawrence river and its deepening and development in the interests of navigation, and that a great St. Lawrence waterway is an immediate and economic necessity for the welfare and best interests of Canada.
And that this house is further of the opinion that the government should undertake the construction and operation of this canal as a public undertaking itself and the power incident herein should be developed and generated at cost by the government for the people under public ownership and not alienated to private interests for gain or exported for use outside Canada.


Thomas Langton Church: 
John Frederick Johnston: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, if this procedure is to be adopted then it simply means abrogating the rule which requires that motions not proceeded with should go to the foot of the list.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Livingstone Brown: This is a point of order.


Mr. BENNETT:: It can not be a point
of order. Mr. Speaker declared the motion agreed to.


John Livingstone Brown: By the simple expedient-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Livingstone Brown: This is a point of order,
Mr. Speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot be a point of
order now.


John Frederick Johnston: I understand the hon. gentleman is rising on a point of order.


John Livingstone Brown: The point of order is
simply this. The rule we adopted a few years ago required that these motions, if not proceeded with the second time they are called, should go to the foot of the list. That rule was adopted for the very obvious reason that motions were standing on the order paper throughout the whole session and not proceeded with. If this procedure is in order,
200	COMMONS
Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Coote
then the very simple expedient of moving the adjournment of the debate after having introduced a motion and spoken a few words to it, will retain the place of that motion on the order paper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It goes to the foot of
the list.


John Livingstone Brown: Does this go to the foot of the list anyway?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


John Livingstone Brown: In that case I have no
point of order to raise.


John Frederick Johnston: The point raised by the hon. gentleman is well understood. Nevertheless the motion to adjourn the debate is in order, and that motion carried.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. TARIFF ON MOTOR TRUCKS


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod) moved:: Whereas motor trucks are now largely used in place of wagons for hauling grain and other produce to primary markets, therefore be it resolved that, in the opinion of this house, the customs tariff on motor trucks should be reduced to a level corresponding to that charged on other agricultural machinery.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I have not chosen
this item in the customs tariff simply because it is the only one that could be attacked. I have chosen it because I have come to the conclusion that the farmers of this country must have cheaper motor trucks made available to them, and because I believe that the manufacturers of motor trucks have established their financial position in a way which demonstrates that this reduction might very well be made.
I think this resolution can be supported by hon. gentlemen in all quarters of this house. I would point out that it is very closely in line with a resolution which was moved by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen in 1911, namely:
That in the opinion of this house, a substantial reduction in the import duties on agricultural implements is now due the agriculturists of Canada, and is in just accord with the true ends of a protective tariff.
In his speech on that occasion Mr. Meighen pointed out that it had been one of the guiding principles of the national policy-which I may say has been in effect for the last fifty years, regardless of which party was in power -that as industrial concerns developed and secured a good hold of the home market as 
well as the export market, these duties should be diminished or in some cases wiped out altogether.
Now, may I quote very briefly from Mr. Meighen's argument on that occasion. He said:
It is this, that im .their attempts to continue the national policy-
He was referring then to the Liberal party which was in power.
-which had obtained for years bp-fore, they have overlooked, they have neglected one essential feature of that policy, they have quite forgotten its guiding principle, namely, the principle that as our industrial institutions advanced in strength and as they were able with every advance to acquire a hold on the home market, the import duties were to be diminished and adjusted in order to meet the evolving and changing conditions. It is that restraining, guiding principle which I claim this government has entirely overlooked, and as a consequence they have allowed, in the respect which I am discussing this afternoon, protection to run rampant, and they have for reasons that are only too obvious, become the slaves of those who helped them into power and who now maintain them there behind ramparts of gold.
Then I might quote further from Mr. Meighen's speech where he cited the remarks made by the late Hon. John Haggart:
For the last fourteen years, protection in Canada has so developed our manufactures that the government now think that a fair reduction in 'the tariff be ventured on.
That is by a Conservative finance minister-
They believe that our people can compete with less proteetioin than 'formerly, and to prove that, it can 'be pointed out that we are now sending agricultural implements to many portions of the world.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think this industry, judged by their ability to export their products, certainly could stand some reduction of the 20 per cent duty which they enjoy today. These are the export figures for motor trucks for the last few years
1925		 11,773
1926		 19,224
1927		 20,411
1928		 15,091
1929		 31,458
Mr. BENNETT Were the trucks assembled or manufactured in Canada?
Mr. COOTE I presume they were manufactured in Canada and exported. I think it is impossible to ascertain what trucks are assembled and what are completely manufactured here. I have not the production figures for all of these years, but the total number of trucks produced in Canada last

Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Coote
year was 55,629, and the number exported was 31,458, which shows that a big percentage of the trucks were sold abroad.
To give the house some idea of the extent to which the motor car industry is exporting this product, from 1925 to 1928, 285,000 cars and trucks were exported, and no doubt it will be of interest to hon. members to know some of t'he countries to which these trucks were sent. Here is a partial list: the Argentine, Australia, Brazil, British Bast Africa, British South Africa, British West Indies, British India, Ceylon, Chile, Colombia, Dutch East Indies, Egypt, New Zealand, Panama, Roumania, Uruguay, Venezuela, United Kingdom and several other countries.
I might refer to one other principle stated by Mr. Meighen in 1911, by which he said the ability of o>ur manufacturers to compete might, be judged. I would take as an example the financial position of one of the large concerns engaged in this industry; the Ford Motor Company of Canada. This company was founded about 1904 with an original cash investment of $125,000. The only other direct cash investment which has ever been made in the company was in 1928 when $6,-
500,000	new capital was taken in. According to the statement of the president of the Ford Motor Company of Canada given at the recent hearing before the tariff board in regard to automobiles, which is reported on page 66 of volume 3 of the board's hearings, 72 per cent of the company's earnings during these years have been reinvested in the company, and its fixed and current assets are now stated to be in excess of $40,000,000.
Mr. BOURA.SSA:	That is the Canadian
company?


George Gibson Coote: Yes, the Ford Company of
Canada. The earnings which have been reinvested would, therefore, amount to approximately $34,000,000. In addition to this cash dividends have been paid up to 1925, amounting to $12,851,000. I have not figures of the dividends paid since that time, but I believe the company has paid in addition to this amount at least two very handsome dividends.
I can bring forward further evidence of the ability of 'these motor car men to manfac-ture with less protection than they are doing to-day.
This is the opinion of Mr. Henry Ford himself, as reported in the Automotive Daily News of Detroit, under date of April 28, 1926, and as reprinted in report no. 3 on automobiles of the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation.
"I believe in free trade everywhere" says Henry Ford in the Detroit Times. "The tariff
is a hmdrarace to trade. Free competition brings healthy business."	_	_
Ford's statement was made in connection with the Canadian tariff reduction on mostor cars, and after visiting the plants of the Ford Motor Company of Canada. "Those fellows over in our Canadian unit," said Mr. Ford, "are going to manufacture more efficiently now. They'll have to. It's going to he a better plant over there-better organization. That's another reason why it's a good thing for the manufacturer.
They've been able to get a higher price in Canada, and naturally they've taken it. But on the other hand lower prices mean more buyers, more buyers mean more business, more business means more growth for the manufacturer. Give me that pliant at Ford city and IT; compete with the plant here at Highland Park any day. Our unit in Canada cam buy as cheaply as we can here. We make every part of the car in the Canadian plant, and 95 per cent anyway of the raw material is supplied right in Canada.
It was suggested that large scale productions make a difference, as many Canadian manufacturers believe they cannot compete with American manufacturers because the latter have advantages in mass production.
"I don't see that," said Mr. Ford. "What do you mean by mass production? I think we've got large scale production in our Canadian unit. They're turning out 600 cars a day. Here vve are doing between 7,000 and 8,000 a day, but I don't think that's any advantage after a certain -point."
Mr. Ford is the most outstanding man in the motor industry to-day, and I think his opinion in this matter should carry a great deal of weight with this house and, I hope, with the finance minister.
I never could understand, Mr. Speaker, why any national policy should allow a manufacturer to charge a Canadian more for his product than is charged outsiders, or, to .put it another way, a policy under which we sell a motor truck to our competitors in the Argentine, for instance, at a lower price than we sell bo our own producers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there evidence of that?


George Gibson Coote: He may use that truck to
haul his wheat and place it on the world's market, or where it could be easily sent to the world's market, in competition with our own Canadian wheat. We have heard considerable argument in this house as to whether this practice was ever indulged in by Canadian manufacturers, but in this case it has been clearly proved in the evidence recently given before the tariff board. This will be found at page 79 of the tariff board hearing. As stated by Mr. Campbell, the president of the company, the wholesale price of their touring car in Canada is $453.75. The wholesale price on the export car is S363, a difference in favour of the export, buyer of $90.75. May
202	COMMONS
Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Coots
I give to the house just a short extract from the evidence which will bring that out very clearly. Here is a question asked by Mr. Deachman.
Mr. Deachman:	What is the retail selling
price of that in Canada?
Mr. Campbell:	$350.
Mr. Deachman:	And what is the wholesale
price of that car?
Mr. Campbell:	Less 17J per cent.
Mr. Deachman:	What does that amount to?
Mr. Musselman:	$453.75.
Mr. Deachman:	That is the wholesale price
at which you sell in Canada; what is your wholesale selling price when you sell abroad?
Mr. Campbell:	$440, less 17J peT cent.
Mr. Deachman:	What does that work out
at.-$3(53; is that right?
Mr. Kew:	Yes.
I think it is quite evident, from a perusal of the evidence given before the tariff board in connection with this hearing, that this is a common practice by all the motor car manufacturers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any evidence
on trucks? I cannot find any.


George Gibson Coote: I think it can be taken for
granted, from the reading of this evidence, that that applies to all their oars and trucks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no evidence on trucks, is there?


George Gibson Coote: I may say that the evidence given before the tariff board in that hearing is very voluminous, and I would not like to state positively that there is or is not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be there, I cannot find it.


George Gibson Coote: I would like to give you the actual difference between the price of trucks in Canada and in the United States. On pages 206-207, volume 3 of the tariff board hearing, the price of a Ford truck chassis, in effect November 1, 1929, at Windsor, was $715. We deduct from that $50.25 to cover a spare tire and cost of oil and gas which the Ford company say is extra on the Canadian truck. That makes a net price of $664.75 at the factory. The price at Detroit of a Ford truck chassis is $528, making an excess price on this truck in Canada of $136.75. May I say, in all fairness to the Ford company, that they state in a note on the bottom of their price-list that this is a heavier truck than is made in the United States, and they are not comparable. I do not know to what extent that would affect the price of this truck. On page 83 of the tariff board hearing, the factory price of a Chevrolet truck chassis in Canada is $695. In the United States the price is $520, making the extra cost in Canada $175.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Will my hon.
friend state whether that is the same truck on both sides of the line?


George Gibson Coote: I cannot say positively, but
I have had an opportunity of seeing those trucks on both sides of the line and there is no difference apparent to the naked eye, and in their statement which is filed in this hearing, they do not claim, so far as I am aware, that there is any difference in these two trucks.
It is often argued in this house that protection does not necessarily increase the price of the product which is receiving the benefit of protection, but this claim certainly cannot be advanced in regard to motor trucks. In this case we have a very clear demonstration of just how it affects the price. .
Another reason which I would like to advance in support of this resolution is that these manufacturers are quite able to take care of themselves, even if a reduction in the tariff does take place. If you look at page 83 of the tariff board hearing in regard to automobiles, you will see that the Ford Company are taking some advantage of those who live in the outlying parts of Canada in the freight rate which they charge. They set the price at the point of delivery, and it. is pointed out on page 83 of the tariff board hearing that on a car which they sell at Sydney, N.S., they have made a profit of $27 on the freight which they pay. Quoting again from this report of the hearing by the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation:
Mr. Campbell: Well, the point is this, that four will take the 10,000 rate; five will take the 12,000, so that there is really not much difference whether we ship four or five.


John Frederick Johnston: Suppose w>e say four; now, what would be the freight cost per car of handling four as compared with one?
Mr. Campbell:	Sydney?


John Frederick Johnston: Sydney-I think Sydney was mentioned in parliament, was it not? It has been brought to my attention, at any rate.
Mr. Kew:	Sydney, Nova Scotia, sir?


John Frederick Johnston: Yes.
Mr. Campbell:	The freight rate is $1.50J,
which on a 10,000-pound basis would be $150.


John Frederick Johnston: Per ear?
Air. Campbell:	For the carload.


John Frederick Johnston: That is for four cars?
Mr. Campbell:	Yes.


John Frederick Johnston: How much is that per oar?
Mr. Nash, we always depend on you for these quick figures.
Mr. Nash:	$38 per car.


John Frederick Johnston: $38 per .touring car. What
would it be if one car was shipped?
Air. Campbell:	$75, and that is our basis
of charge.


John Frederick Johnston: You take the advantage of
the difference between $38 and $75, do you?
Air. Campbell:	Well, there is loading at
both ends on that.

Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Coote
The ChaiTmam:	What advantage do you
take per car ait Sydney?
Mr. Campbell:	Roughly the difference
between $48 and $75.


John Frederick Johnston: What does that amount to?
Mr. Campbell:	$27.
In addition to the tariff protection, they also have this protection through freight rates.


Mr. DUNNING:: You gave some figures a few minutes ago relating, as I understood it, to the export of trucks from Canada. The figures you quoted were so out of line with those I have before me that I should like you to repeat them.


George Gibson Coote: These are the figures:
1025	 11,000
1926		 19,000
1927		 20.000
1928		 15,000
1920	 31,458


Charles Avery Dunning: Trucks?


George Gibson Coote: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sure my hon. friend is in error.


George Gibson Coote: As soon as I have concluded my speech I will secure the bulletin issued by the Bureau of Statistics from which I secured these figures, and give it to the minister. If I have time I should like to give the house another illustration of the ability of these manufacturers to take care of themselves. I did not quite complete my statement in regard to the excess freight, if I may use that term, which the Ford company is charging us, and I might say that in this case I refer to motor trucks. These figures are taken from a statement which will be found on almost the last page of the report of the tariff board hearing on automobiles. The price of a Ford truck chassis at Victoria, British Columbia, after deducting $50.25 which they claim is the excess cost on account of the spare tire, gasoline and oil, is $826.75. The price at Seattle, which the tariff board took as a comparable point with Victoria, was $644, a difference of $182.75, or 28 per cent higher.


Mr. GOTT:: The same car?


George Gibson Coote: Yes, a Ford truck chassis.


Eccles James Gott: One is American; the other is Canadian.


George Gibson Coote: The point I wish to make is that the Ford Motor Company takes the advantage of both the tariff and the freight rate. The difference at the factory between the Canadian and American truck chassis is $136.75, while the difference at Seattle is $182.75. The price at Edmonton of this truck chassis is $836.75 and at Boise, Idaho, which the board
took as a comparable point, it is $645.40, a difference of $191.35. In passing I would draw the attention of this house to the fact that this truck costs $8.60 more at Edmonton than at Victoria, British Columbia, although Victoria is 700 or 800 miles more distant. These figures may give hon. members an idea of the excess freight charges we are paying in the prairie provinces because of the fact that we have no water competition to keep down our freight rates. The price of this Ford truck chassis at Halifax is $748.75, while the price at Boston, which is approximately the same distance, is $586.40, or a difference of $162.35. May I repeat that the difference in price at the factory is $136.75, which leaves an added difference of about $26 in the maritime provinces as compared with Ontario.
The other point I wish to make is brought out in the report of the tariff board hearing. Ip 1926 the late Minister of Finance removed the excise tax on cars produced in Canada costing less than $1300 provided that 50 per cent of the car was produced here. The understanding of this house, the understanding,
I am sure the minister had, and the information he gave this house was that the manufacturers would not take advantage of this reduction in setting the prices of their cars in Canada. This matter was referred to the tariff board, and in passing I should like to point out some evidence in regard to it. The chairman was examining Mr. Russell in regard to this very point. He said:


John Frederick Johnston: Would you have been able
to maintain the Toronto price if the excise on foreign cars had been abolished, oar if the excise on the domestic cars had been retained?
Mr. Russell:	My ano-wer is that_we had to
get that price or import the car, if it had been cheaper to import the complete car.


John Frederick Johnston: It is perfectly obvious that
you could not have maintained that price if the 5 per cent had not been removed from the domestic car and retained on the imported car.
It seems to me this might be an opportune time to suggest to the Minister of Finance that we naturally expect him to remove the excise tax on the imported car.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer if I have time; I think this is brought out clearly in the memorandum submitted by the Ford Motor Company to the tariff board. It refers to the amendment to the Customs Tariff in 1926, which granted a 25 per cent drawback on materials imported and used in cars 50 per cent produced in Canada. The Ford Motor Company say in regard to this:
We wish to draw attention .to the fact that the original act required a Canadian content of 50 per cent to qualify for home consumption drawback and likewise to qualify the lower

Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Coote
priced cars for exemption from excise tax. The wording of the act requires that individual models be qualified.
A supplementary regulation issued by the Department of National Revenue (not authenticated by legislation or order in council) permitted qualification for home consumption drawback (but did not provide for exemption from excise tax) on the basis of total factory output of all models, provided that 50 per cent of the total cost of production was incurred in Canada; provided also that each individual model has at least 40 per cent Canadian content, or alternatively, that certain production operations, such as chassis assembly and body trimming and finishing have been performed in Canada.
The obvious result of the application of the departmental ruling is that in qualifying a factory output, any excess Canadian content in one particular car or line of cars, allows just bare assembling of chassis and body trimming and finishing to be performed on the other cars produced, thereby obtaining drawback and possibly escaping payment of excise tax, contrary to the provisions of the act.
It seems to me that these manufacturers who were able to go to the commisisoner of customs and get him to issue such a regulation certainly are able to take care of themselves in almost any situation. I think before the session is ended this matter should be thoroughly discussed and some explanation furnished as to the authority of the commissioner of customs to issue regulations which in the opinion of some of the men appearing before the tariff board and some of the manufacturers is really a variation of the act itself.
The agriculturaf producers of Canada are placed in a difficult position. They are facing world competition and a great deal of the grain produced has to be hauled twenty to thirty miles. In some of the outlying districts, such as the Peace River district, some of the grain is hauled eighty miles to the railway point. These men are forced to use trucks. In many districts the hauling of grain in wagons is just as obsolete as the wearing of petticoats is said to be. The introduction of the grain combine harvester has necessitated the use of motor trucks, and the present condition of the wheat market should convince even the most optimistic of our friends that we are facing very keen competition and, our production costs must be reduced to the very minimum. I do not think I need to labour that point.
During 1928 the number of trucks and commercial cars in use in the three prairie provinces increased by over 10,000, and I think it is fair to estimate the increased cost of those trucks due to the tariff at $200 per truck. A short time ago I gave the increased cost of trucks, but that only covered the 
chassis, so I think $200 would be a fair figure when the increased cost of the body is ineluded. Estimating it at $200 per truck, we paid last year an extra $2,000,000 for these vehicles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does not that figure of
10.000	include trucks and cars?


George Gibson Coote: No, 10,000 trucks; the number of truck licences issued increased by 10,000. If we are to believe Mr. Henry Ford, a reduction in the price would increase the sales. There is a tremendous market available. According to the census of 1921, there are 711,090 occupied farms in Canada, but only 129,578 truck licences were issued in 1928. Many of those trucks would be used as delivery cars, so that there must be at least
600.000	farmers in Canada without trucks. I will not attempt to say what percentage of those should have trucks, but no doubt it would be large. In the prairie provinces there are 248,000 occupied farms and only 31,000 truck licences issued last year. There are over 200,000 farmers in western Canada without motor trucks.


Charles Avery Dunning: How many truck licences?


George Gibson Coote: Thirty-one thousand in western Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: In what provinces?


George Gibson Coote: Alberta, Saskatchewan and
Manitoba.


Charles Avery Dunning: The four provinces?


George Gibson Coote: The three prairie provinces.
The duty on agricultural machinery has been reduced at various times by different governments until it stands at 10 per cent or lower for the general tariff on the majority of agricultural implements. Tariff item 446, which covers cultivators, drills, harrows, etc., gives the duty as British preferential, free; intermediate, 7i per cent; and general tariff 7\ per cent. Item 591 lists farm wagons at 5; 10; 10. Item 448, covering a long list of implements not otherwise provided, gives the duty as 5; 10; 10.
This resolution asks simply that motor trucks, which have now largely displaced wagons for the hauling of produce to market, should be given a rate similar to that in effect on other implements. This is a very fair resolution and I hope it will receive favourable consideration from the members on all sides of this house.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance):	Mr. Speaker, I thought that
probably we might expect to hear from a number of the members regarding a resolution

Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Dunning
which would be of a very far-reaching character if adopted by the house. I might have questioned the propriety of the resolution as worded in view of the fact that it makes a fiscal proposal in advance of the bringing down of the budget. I cannot quote the rule in that regard, but I am sure that there is some difficulty in connection with a resolution so worded. However, I am not raising that point as I presume an expression of the views of the house is sought on the basis of the evidence presented, rather than a decision by the house on a matter of fiscal policy which can be made only by a resolution presented through the medium of the committee of ways and means, made at the proper time and in the proper place. With resolutions of this kind, I would like to have the benefit of the views of hon. members. I am new at this business of being a finance minister and I welcome education from whatever source it may proceed.
In connection with matters of this kind we have set up an investigating tribunal to endeavour to secure and publicly to record the facts in connection with any application relating to tariff and taxation which may be referred to it by the Minister of Finance. This matter which is now under discussion is one of the matters which is under investigation at the present time by the tariff advisory board, indeed the hon. member who moved the resolution had. as he indicated in his own remarks, something to do with urging upon my predecessor the necessity for such an investigation with respect to the automobile industry. Therefore, I cannot pretend to indicate to-day what proposals may or may not be brought down in the budget as they would bear upon this or any other matter; all I can say is that I hope there will be a very full discussion and that every member taking part will endeavour to contribute something by way of information. I submit that it is useless to quote one side of the evidence presented at the hearing of the tariff board without in fairness presenting any contrary arguments or facts which were advanced, I cannot understand at all the figures advanced by my hon. friend. I asked for a correction regarding the export figures, because they are so far out of line with the information supplied to me that either his figures or mine must of necessity be wrong. I have before me the figures covering the production in Canada of trucks and while I have not the figures regarding export, it must be manifest to the house that it would be impossible for the truck manufacturers of Canada to export four or five times as many trucks as they manufactured. That would be the position if the
figures given by my hon. friend were correct. My information is that in 1929 there were manufactured in Canada 6,023 trucks under one ton in capacity; 1,225 trucks of one ton capacity; 1,643 trucks of over one ton and under five tons capacity; and one truck only of five tons capacity or over.


Eccles James Gott: Of 5,000 tons?


Charles Avery Dunning: Five tons and over. I am afraid the hon. member is as far out in his figures as is the mover of the resolution in the figures he gave. During the same year, there were imported into Canada 7,417 trucks.
I have not those imported divided according to capacity, but it will be seen that the number of trucks comes very close to the number of trucks produced in Canada during 1929.
I would therefore ask that inquiry be made by my hon. friend as to the correctness of his export figures which I gather ran up to 31,000.
I am inclined to think the error arose through his taking exports of all kinds of motor vehicles instead of just the trucks with which his resolution deals.	[DOT]
I am, quite frankly, unable to say what is the present position of the truck industry in Canada. The investigation is still proceeding. I am advised that it is possibly the most technical investigation which 'has ever been undertaken by the tariff board. The work is being done very thoroughly; hearings have been held and are not completed, and I do not think are likely to be completed in the near future. A great deal of information has been received and is now of public record. Certainly, until I get all the facts I am not prepared to take a stand one way or the other on the broad terms of a resolution such as that on tlhe order paper and which has been moved by my hon. friend.
I would welcome, as I intimated a little while ago, the expression of views and the giving of such facts as members on all sides of the house may have bearing upon this question. I believe it would be wise, after such an expression of views has been given, to consider withdrawing the resolution pend>-ing the presentation of the budget. I suggest that as a matter of common sense; otherwise we would 'be in the position of each year having on the order paper a large number of resolutions seeking to secure an expression of the house on matters which could be effectively and properly presented only through tire medium of the budget itself.


Mr. IRVINE:: What is the matter with that?


Charles Avery Dunning: Nothing the matter at
all, if my hon. friend desires it. But I suggest
206	COMMONS
Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Adshead
in all good temper, as a matter of common sense procedure, that this house must have before it at a given time in the session the fiscal proposals of the government for the coming year, and that this is the best time to record our views pro and con, having before us the whole fiscal program.


William Irvine: It would then be too late.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend can of
course hold his view. I am mow expressing mine as to what is the common sense procedure with respect to dealing with fiscal matters by way of vote of the house.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: That is
locking the stable after the horse is stolen.


Charles Avery Dunning: As my hon. friends are well aware, each fiscal proposal which comes down in the budget must be presented to the committee of ways and means by way of a separate resolution dealing with itself. That has 'been the established practice of dealing with budgets through a great number of years, not only in Canada -but in all British parliaments, and personally I doubt very much whether the discussion of resolutions of this character, .framed exactly as this one is, is really in order. I do not, however, raise 'that objection, because I have not had time to investigate the bearing of it.
I call attention, however, to the difference in wording between this resolution and the one next immediately following which reads:
In the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of-
The sponsor of it worded it in this way because he recognized that such a proposal as he is there advocating, must, if it is to become effective, emanate from the government, and in the meantime the house is asked to express its opinion that the government should take into consideration the advisability of the course proposed. That is all I have to say on the subject, except to request that hon. members who give information particularly dealing with matters where figures and statistics have such an important bearing on the case, should take every care to present exact figures and facts with regard to the matters under discussion. That after all, is the primary reason for the establishment of the Advisory Board on Tariff and Taxation. I a;m not afraid of the facts if we are sure we have the facts before us on any particular question.


Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I
had expected my hon. friends to the right would have risen in somewhat righteous in-[Mr. Dunning.!
dignation against this resolution. I had in mind the pilgrimage of 1926 and I expected to hear in front of the parliament buildings the tramp of some three or four thousand men from Oshawa objecting to the reduction in the tariff to the ruination of the automobile industry. I did not, however, hear this, and as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has asked for some facts bearing upon the case, I can give him some. I have a few facts in connection with the reduction that was made in the duties on automobiles in 1926. If the reduction in the automobile duties in 1926 produced certain effects, it is reasonable to suppose and to argue that like causes will produce like effects. In 1926, after the celebrated pilgrimage and the protests of ruination were made, the dealers themselves had something to say about the matter, not simply as a political affair, but to their own particular agents, and I propose to read just two letters which were written by the Chevrolet motor people to the'ir agents in connection with the actual reduction in the automobile duties at that particular time. Immediately after the reduction in the duties, they wrote this letter to their agents:
Owing to existing conditions caused by the tariff reduction proposals

Irrespective of whether there was any excise reduction or not.
-on finished ears in the recent budget, the following mew retail delivery prices will apply for Chevrolet ears.
Then there follows a list of cars with the different prices. A car that was formerly priced at $90S was then priced to retail at $844, making a saving of $64 to the man who bought it. In fact, I knew at that particular time one man who entered a Chevrolet agent's office and asked him the price of that particular car. When the dealer quoted him he said that he could not afford it then, so he left the garage and went home. Two weeks afterwards he came in again and the same oar was standing there. He asked what the present price of the oar was, and the agent told him it was reduced $64 on account of the reduction made in the duty on automobiles. One would have a very hard time to convince that man, at any rate, that the reduction in the price of that car was not caused by the reduction in the tariff. Another car which was formerly priced at $1,165 was reduced to $1,058, or a reduction of $107. Another high-priced car which was formerly quoted at $1,262 was then priced at $1,178, also showing a reduction in price. One would have a very hard time to convince any of those men that the

Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
reduction, in price was not due to the reduction in the tariff, because the company itself had said so.
What effect did that have upon the business? Did it retard the business? Did the business go to ruin on account of it? Let us see. Orders were sent in immediately after the reduction in the tariff, and about a month later this same retail dealer of Chevrolet cars received this letter which I wish to put upon Hansard:
We received yours of 'the 28th ult. in connection with your order for carload of Chevrolet cars.	,
Beg to advise that we are doing everything in our power to hurry along your Shipment of cars but so far have not been successful, although expect same will be shipped any day. We appreciate very much that our dealers are losing a certain amount of business this year but you are no douibt aware our factory is operating at capacity at the present time and during the past few weeks we have not been able to keep up with our orders, however, we hope 'that within the next week or ten days to get entirely caught up with our shipments and you may rest ,assured we will do everything in our power to rush this load along to you.
Evidently the lower price of the car increased the sales because it increased the farmer's purchasing power. I think the minister might well take this evidence, not from a politician, but from the dealers, and expect like causes to produce like effects. I think that a decrease in the duties on motor trucks, and consequently a decrease in the price, would increase the sales, and not hurt in any way either the manufacturers or the dealers. On the contrary, more cars will be made, and more cars sold, and there will be more employment for our workingmen, which I am sure my friends to my right desire as I do myself.


John Gordon Ross: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has asked the different members of the house to express their views Upon this resolution. If we go back to the sessions of 1925-26 and 1926-27, it will be remembered that the opinion then expressed on this side of the house, as well as in the corner where the mover of the resolution (Mr. Coote) sits, was that a reduction in the tariff on automobiles would increase the sales, would lower the price, and would give greater employment throughout the Dominion. All these things have come true just as we predicted, and I am glad to see that my friends the Conservatives have learned a much needed lesson and that they are now saying nothing against a resolution of this kind at this time, although
they fought tooth and nail in the sessions of 1925-26 and 1926-27 against a reduction in the tariff on automobiles.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that we need to-day to present figures in regard to automobiles and trucks, because we have had practical proof of the benefits of a reduction in the tariff on automobiles, and those benefits have extended to everyone in Canada.
My hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) is moving for a reduction in the tariff on motor trucks. He believes, as I do, that a reduction in the tariff on motor trucks will lower the price of the motor truck to users in Canada, and as the farmer in western Canada is very much interested in a lowering of the price of his machinery of production, I am in favour of this resolution.
We have in Canada to-day a peculiar situation in regard to our grain. A few years ago men who had lived for many years in western Canada were advocating that the farms of western Canada be split up from whole sections, three quarter-sections and half-sections, into quarter-sections. Men who have noted the trend in western Canada realize that there has been a vast change, and that instead of the farms in western Canada becoming smaller and smaller they are to-day growing larger on account of the modern machinery that is being used on the farm. The tractor is now beyond the experimental stage and is being used night and day on the farms of western Canada. The combine harvester, another new machine in the last few years, is also being used extensively, and along with the combine harvester, the motor truck for the transportation of grain to the elevator is almost a necessity in western Canada to-day. Therefore we are very much interested in doing what we can to lower the cost to the producer of western Canada of the implements that are necessary to handle his grain. It is a good thing that the trend in western Canada is towards larger farms, because I think it is a recognized fact that the northern races are better able to handle machinery than the southern races, and if competition in grain growing throughout the world is to come between the southern and northern countries, then by the use of machinery on extensive areas of land in this country we shall be in a more favourable position to compete than we have been in the past when hand labour was of more importance in farming than it is to-day. Therefore, any move by this house to lower the cost of the implements of production in agriculture in this country will be welcomed by the country and should be sup-
208	COMMONS
Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Millar
ported by members on all sides of the house I am glad to see that my friends of the opposition have at least seen the light and realize that a reduction in the tariff will help out the producer on the land, and consequently they are to-day sitting tight to their seats and agreeing to the resolution.


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: I have followed with a great deal of interest the addresses on this resolution. I very frequently find myself in accord with the views of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), and I do in this particular matter. The farmers in all parts of the world find themselves in distress to-day, and in the United States great efforts are being made to relieve the farmers from the difficulties in which they now find themselves. The same is true of other countries. I was talking recently to a man who travelled last summer in Denmark, that little country that is supposed to be the most advanced in farming of all countries of the world, and he said that it was surprising the number of people who made inquiries about Canada with a view to settling here. The farmers of western Canada in their production of grain find themselves at a very great disadvantage as compared with other grain growing countries, and particularly wheat growing countries, because we are far from tide water, whereas in the Argentine, Australia and other countries the grain fields are close to tide water or to navigable rivers. That gives them a very great advantage.
Again, in recent years, plant diseases have increased to a very great extent. Rust twenty years ago was almost unknown in this country; at least, damage from rust was almost negligible. To-day rust is a very great menace to the wheat grower of western Canada. I think it is only fair and right in the interests of all Canada that the implements of production should be reduced to the very lowest possible cost. This country has followed the practice of assisting the manufacturer to enable him to compete in the markets of the world by giving him drawbacks on his raw material. It is only following out the same policy to the farming community in this country to reduce the cost of their implements of production.
As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has said, all the facts on this matter are not yet known, yet enough is known, it seems to me. for us, at all events for myself, to come to the conclusion-and I doubt very much if the facts that are left to be brought out will change it-that the interests of western Ca-
nada and the interests of the farmers all over Canada, and particularly of western Canada, where grain is handled, as the hon. member for Macleod has said, largely with the motor truck demand a reduction of the duties, and this is one of the places where a reduction can be made that will be of benefit to the farming community.
I do not know whether the mover of the resolution and I would agree upon the point I am now going to mention. If I remember rightly, some of his colleagues in that corner of the house, not so many years ago, spoke rather disparagingly of the work done by the tariff board. I am inclined to think that the hon. member for Macleod, from the information that he has been able to gather as to the work done by the tariff board, would now feel like commending its work. It is bringing out very valuable information. Matters of this nature are being treated openly, and the information elicited is enabling the house and the country at large to see more clearly the effects of the tariff.
Speaking more particularly of the western farmer, I may say that he finds himself in such a position that the holding of land during the past year or two, because of his difficulties in the way of frost, rust and plant diseases, has brought him to the point where -perhaps it may be putting it a little extremely-it is a question whether the ownership of land is an asset or a liability. Now, if that were the case only with those who are poor farmers, who have allowed their land to become dirty and are inefficient in their work, I think there would be little ground for complaint. The quicker those farmers were replaced by better men the better it would be for them and for the country. But, as a matter of fact the time has arrived when even efficient, capable, able-bodied farmers, men who are handling their jobs as well as those engaged in any other line of work, find themselves in a position where it is next to impossible for them to make a living, even though they have good farms. Naturally their buying power is decreased. They are not able to take the goods of the manufacturers, they are not able to sustain those who are engaged in industrial work in the cities, and consequently the plants are closed down, leading to unemployment. If the farmer were *working on a basis where he could make a fair profit, he would be buying more goods and his money would filter through to those in other industries, which would help the railways, the storekeepers, and others.
I am entirely in sympathy with this resolution. I might add that the farmers, particularly of western Canada, and I believe in

Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Irvine
all parts of the Dominion, are not lying back in their harness, and saying:	Let the government help us. I think the house will agree that the wheat pool is perhaps the most outstanding effort in cooperation that the world has ever seen. The farmers are doing their utmost to help themselves, and I think it behooves the government to come forward at every opportunity and give them the fullest measure of assistance possible.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) remarked that he was surprised that the hon. gentlemen to our right had not risen in protest against a resolution of this kind. As a matter of fact I would have been very much surprised if they had, for I feed that they understand, at least subconsciously, that the interests of the manufacturers are perfectly safe in the capable hands of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). So far as I am personally concerned, I subscribe neither to the shibboleth of high protection nor to the shibboleth of free trade. I stand for equal protection to all or no protection to anybody. If the present or any other administration can give protection to the agriculturist equal to that which they give to the manufacturers, I am satisfied with tariffs; if they cannot do that, then the time has come for them to wipe out tariffs entirely.
That is the principle upon which I wish to make a few remarks on this resolution. I think the hon. gentleman who introduced it (Mr. Coote) has made it very clear indeed, in fact has demonstrated its soundness by figures. He took those figures from that body which the Minister of Finance tells us has been entrusted with the examination of this very problem,, and by those figures he has shown that as a result of the tariff protection which this industry enjoys, the manufacture of motor cars and motor trucks is a very profitable business. He shows also this strange anomaly, that motor -cars and motor trucks produced in this country are dearer to Canadians than they are to any other people in the world. He indicates also that the manufacturers in their own interests not only take advantage of the protection which they enjoy to raise their prices, but they also take advantage of freight rates. Further, he shows that at all points this industry is perfectly capable of taking care of itself without any protection at all, and even quotes such an authority as Mr. Henry Ford to that effect. Then the hon. gentleman asks that the trucks-just the tracks-be classified as regards tariff with farm wagons and similar farm implements.
Now, sir, we thought-at least I thought, and I am sure other hon. members have thought so too-that this resolution was a very timely one. Timely because, first of all, the budget has not yet been brought down, and if there is any meaning at all in parliamentary procedure I thought that the representations of hon. members would be taken into consideration in a serious way; and if that is to be done the time to consider our viewpoint is now before the budget is brought down, for experience has taught us- and indeed the Minister of Finance has just proved it-that if we wait until the budget is brought down, brought down in a way that is regarded as proper and constitutional, then everything is fixed and whatever we may saj' is not even considered, no alterations have ever been made. To make such alterations on the advice of any member not sitting on the government benches would be to admit weakness on the part of the administration, and to force changes by a vote would mean the defeat of the government. So that under the circumstances we are absolutely helpless to effect any change if we wait until the budget comes down. Therefore, if our presence here is to mean anything at all, hon. members must be permitted to express their opinions on fiscal matters before the budget has been brought down.
Also, we thought this resolution was timely, because a resolution dealing with reductions of tariffs on automobiles was brought forward, I think in 1926, by the same hon. gentleman and resulted in whatever reductions were made at that time. Then there is another reason why we thought it was a timely resolution: we believed that the new Minister of Finance was in favour of tariff reduction. Indeed, I think he is on record as having made such a declaration as recently as a few weeks ago when he was in the west. With that assurance we thought this an acceptable time to bring forward suggestions for a reduction of the duty in respect to motor trucks, feeling that we had a real friend at court who would sympathize with the appeal of the western farmers for such a picayune reduction as would be implied in this resolution. And surely when we considered the protection enjoyed by the manufacturers of motor cars and motor trucks in relation to the protection that the farmers get, we felt that we were not going too far when we asked that motor trucks be placed in the same tariff schedule as farm wagone. Feeling therefore that the minister was sincere in his declaration we thought this was a timely resolution.

210	COMMONS
Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Irvine
Now, frankly, I was a little bit surprised at the minister's reply. I was surprised, because I have a great respect for his ability, especially as a parliamentarian, that he had great difficulty in replying. He seemed to be searching everywhere for an excuse which would be adequate to begin with; he pointed out how far-reaching the resolution was. It does not reach a bit beyond a truck, that is as far as it reaches. And he questions the figures of the hon. gentleman from Maeleod, and makes the trucks to be much smaller in number than was quoted by him, so it is not as far-reaching as we thought it was, in fact, it does not reach very far at all. Then the hon. minister questions the propriety of the resolution. He did not care to ask that it be ruled out of order, but he feels that it might be done, and the reason why it might be done is that the only person who has a right to bring forward such a resolution is the finance minister or a member of the cabinet, that no one else has any business with any fiscal matter whatsoever.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will permit me, I did not say at any time what he is now quoting as coming from me.


William Irvine: Would the hon. gentleman
state the difference in result from what he said and what I aim saying?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a very marked
difference in result, and my hon. friend is quite well aware of the difference. I made no statement to the effect that no member of this parliament had anything to do with fiscal ma tters outside of myself or the members of the government. That is just what my hon. friend is attributing to me, and he knows that is not a correct statement.


William Irvine: While I am not questioning my hon. friend's correction, I am saying that what the minister means, in effect, is this, that no resolution dealing with fiscal matters will receive any consideration by this house except it be brought down by the finance minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: What I said is not as
stated by the hon. member. It will stand and speak for itself on the records of the house.


William Irvine: I aim afraid we will have to ask the minister to issue a treatise of interpretation of his honourable remarks. I have been in the house a few years and I am telling what actually happens in this house. I will state it again. We wait until the budget is brought down by the finance minister with the details of the finances of the country fixed according to his best judgment. Then we are in this fMr. Irvine.]
position, that if we give advice as to a change in that budget, good advice even, and if the minister accepts it, it will be indicative of the weakness of the administration, therefore he will refuse it. If we move a resolution-


Charles Avery Dunning: I would like to ipromise
my hon. friend now that if he makes any such suggestion and does as he says, convinces me that the suggestion is good when this house is in committee of ways and means' following the budget, I shall be happy indeed to bring up whatever suggestion my hon. friend makes which seems to me to be good.


William Irvine: If the hon. the minister
will show me that he is convinei-ble, I will accept his proposition, but I have never yet seen an bon. gentleman in that position who was con vincible on a matter of this kind, so he is perfectly and absolutely safe in his Challenge. I say that if we make a sensible suggestion the government will not accept it, because to do so would be equivalent to adt-mitting weakness to the country. If we were strong enough to force by the vote of this parliament an alteration in the budget, then the government would be defeated. It is not particularly the defeat of the government that we are asking, but rather are we trying to force a change or an alteration in an item in the budget. Few members would wish to accept the responsibility of plunging the country into an election over a motor truck,-there is the position which the minister places us in. And finally, the minister's last argument is that the matter of motor trucks is -being investigated by the tariff board, and so the tariff board fulfils that high function which some of us -prophesied it would fulfil when it was organized. It is used as a buffer by the government to put between it and every blow which is struck at the tariff, so it is both a buffer and a bluffer as someone suggests.
These are the arguments of the minister.
I hope that he will reconsider them and tell us frankly that he would like to see this reduction granted so as to bring the agriculturists a little nearer to the same economic plane as the class that is protected by the tariff in this instance. The minister also suggests that the hon. member would be well advised to withdraw his resolution. I have not consulted the hon. gentleman moving the resolution, and I do not know whether he is thinking of withdrawing it or otherwise, -but I do wish to say that I hope he does not withdraw it. I hope that this will be voted on and that we shall know just exactly who in this house are willing to have such resolutions as the hon. gentleman suggests.

Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Malcolm


Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I
do not wish to delay the question being put. On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who differed from the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) as to the statistics, I would like to correct the impression left by the hon. member. The hon. member for Macleod was quoting from a pamphlet issued by the Bureau of Statistics, being a monthly report on automobile statistics for Canada, and he was taking only the production figures for finished trucks. In reality, the figures for finished trucks show a decline because I believe the truck business is becoming more a straight chassis business, the buyers buying the bodies in accordance with the requirements of the truck. For the year 1928, the production figures for Canada of all sorts of completed trucks was 17,527, and for 1929, 8,892. But the figures for the production of truck chassis for 1928 were 26,679, and for 1929, 46,736. So that I think the difference that existed between the figures given by my hon. friend the member for Macleod and the finance minister were brought about by the difference between the figures for trucks and truck chassis. For the year 1928, for which we have exact figures, the truck business on an import and export and production basis stands as follows. In 1928 we exported 23,656 trucks to a value of 88,652,000. During the same period we imported trucks to the number of 7,182 to a value of $8,305,000. The house will note that the value of the trucks exported was comparable to the value of trucks imported, but the number of trucks exported stood at 23,000 odd, whereas the number of trucks imported stood at 7,000 odd, showing that it was only the heavy duty trucks which were imported, and that it was the smaller trucks which were exported. The value of the production of trucks and truck chassis for the year 1928 was about $22,000,000, and the value of export about $8,000,000, so that the total export of trucks in Canada in the year 1928 amounted to about $30,000,000, and the total value of import to about $8,000,000. I give those figures so that there will be no misunderstanding.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could the minister give us information as to how much of this represents the assembling of parts.


James Malcolm: I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend the leader of the opposition any more accurate data than is contained in the pamphlet from which the minister quoted.
2419-14J


Mr. A. MacGILLIVRAY YOUNG (Saskatoon) :: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to support the principle of this resolution. I am always in favour of tariff reductions on implements of production, and motor trucks are valuable not only upon the farm but in many other lines of business.
I was interested in the fact that up to the present time we have had no different opinion expressed by hon. members sitting directly opposite. Those of us who were here in the session of 1925-26 cannot fail to remember the very large delegation which was brought to the front of this house; I am informed thai the entire population of Oshawa was here, and also quite an additional number from the city of Toronto, but even those numbers were not sufficiently impressive to deter the house from taking the action it should have taken and did take. I was particularly pleased this afternoon with the fact that now, by their silence, hon. gentlemen opposite sanction and approve the action taken by the Liberal government in 1926, when the tariff on automobiles and trucks was lowered, although at that time thej- were loud in their denunciation of this action. I am particularly pleased with my hon. friend from Ontario (Mr. Kaiser), an hon. gentleman for whom I have a very high regard. In many of our private conversations, as well as in his public utterances, he strongly condemned the action of the government of that day, but now I find that by his silence he sanctions the motion before the house. Since we are all agreed1 I think I can go this far and say that I feel the time is opportune indeed for a resolution such as this, before the budget is brought down. In this way we may give an expression of opinion, and to that extent perhaps a direction to the government, to the effect that in this house at this time we are unanimously in favour of lowering the tariff on implements of production. I support the resolution very heartily.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Before the resolution is finally disposed of I wish to say that the use of motor trucks at the present time is a very live question down in the maritimes. On account of the large increase in potato acreage the farmers have been forced to use motor trucks in order to get their large production to market, and possibly they are in a more difficult position than the people of western Canada because, as you are aware, our crop is perishable and has to bo marketed in a few months. Hence the need, of quick transportation.
212	COMMONS
Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Kaiser
My hon. friend in his resolution has asked that the duty be reduced to that now in force on farm wagons. I wish to say that our peo-ple in the maribimes feel that this will scarcely be i sufficient reduction; they feel that the duty on farm wagons at the present time is 2 or 3 per cent higher than that on other machinery they are using, and they believe the tariff should be brought down to the rate prevailing on other agricultural machinery such as binders and other harvesting machinery. In addition t.0 that we are forced to import from the United States a great deal of potato machinery of the improved type, which also carries a higher duty than harvesting machinery at the present time. I would suggest that the tariff be reduced not only on motor trucks, but that farm wagons and potato machinery should receive the same consideration when the Minister of Finance is arranging his budget for the present session. Anything along that line is always welcomed by the farmers of our province, and certainly would be welcomed by all the farmers of the maritimes.


Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to say anything upon this occasion. I just returned to the house a few minutes ago from my home, and had not thought any such resolution woidd come before this house. Had it not been for the very pointed, though extremely kindly, remarks of my hon. friend from Saskatoon (Mr. Young) across the way I certainly would have left the responsibility of action in this matter with the government of the day to whom, I consider, such matters should be justly left. But I am compelled to say this: It matters not to me whether or not all the members of this house are unanimous upon this occasion; so far as I am concerned, I am opposed to the resolution because of two facts.
My hon. friend has referred a good many times in this house to a deputation of honest, hard-working people who came all the way from the city of Oshawa to the city of Ottawa to point out to this government that tampering with the tariff in regard to this great industry would prejudice their homes and their callings in life. Let me tell my hon. friend that I was home over the past week end, and those people who were in procession to the hill at Ottawa are in procession now looking for jobs. Hundreds of them are being supplied with relief in the city of Oshawa because they are out of work; others are working one or two hours each day, some four hours, some three days a week, and yet on the statistics compiled by the bureau in the city of Ottawa they are placed in the class of employed. They

are employed just sufficient to keep poverty from their doors. When these gentlemen were here, when that procession of honest Canadians seeking to protect their homes and their jobs came to Ottawa, what were they told? They were told by the Prime Minister of Canada to go home and devote themselves to the reading of the 19th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, which described them as so many thousands of heathens in a rage coming to this city to importune the great apostle, asking him to save them, and shouting " O, great is Diana of the Ephesians." This was all the sympathy handed out to those people on that occasion. I ask my hon. friend from Saskatoon whether a man who is a Canadian in an industrial city is not worthy of the same consideration from this country as any other citizen. Are the people who are employed in the upbuilding of the industries of this country to have the ground cut from beneath their feet every year or two? If my hon. friend will look at the statistics since that memorable procession to Ottawa, he will find this: that the imports of automobiles into this country have increased to-day over 300 per cent. Had the tariff been left as Sir Wilfrid Laurier put it when he was Prime Minister of this country, in the city of Oshawa to-day there would be three months' extra work at ten hours per day, instead of conditions as we now find them. Yet we are asked to pay no attention to such a state of affairs, but to decrease, still decrease, the meagre allowance of industrial protection there is left to our people.
Mr. Speaker, this question may be before the house on another occasion, when I will en-reavour to have available further facts. All that -I ask parliament to do at the present time, and I , plead with parliament, is to leave this question where it ought to be. First, have every fact investigated before the tariff board which has been appointed and which is assumedly functioning, and then leave to the government of the day the terrible responsibility of wiping out a new industry in this country and of demolishing a promising young city of Canada. That is all I ask parliament to do. I do not think for one moment that every hon. member on this side of the house is in favour of smashing the industrial fabric of this Dominion of Canada.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Can't you get
someone on that side of the house to support
it?
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I think the request
made by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) is a very reasonable one. If we over-

Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Carmichael
look one or two paragraphs, the speech from the throne did not contain anything which we did not know before, and we offer this opportunity to the government to save the session from being wholly barren. This would be a very popular item to appear in the budget, and one to which I think the majority of Canadians would be favourably disposed.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) must have been very hard pressed for an argument when he said that this was not the time to introduce this resolution. When would he have it introduced? If the minister has an answer I should be very glad to hear it. If private members have any place in parliament at all, this is the time to bring in resolutions bearing upon the budget.


Charles Avery Dunning: I objected to the propriety of a resolution in this form, and I contrasted the wording of this resolution with the one immediately next following it, proposed by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer). I am quite sure that if this resolution carried in its present form it would be regarded as absolutely and completely binding upon this house and the government. The hon. member for Battle River very properly uses the phraseology which is common to British parliaments in introducing a fiscal or financial matter by requesting that the government should take into consideration the advisability of doing so and so. I did not object to the propriety of this discussion which is now taking place, and the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phial) unconsciously does me an injustice. What I objected to was the manner in which it is before the house at this time. I know there are very many hon. members who could quite easily vote for a resolution couched in the terms of the one next following the resolution under discussion, but who would not feel that they could vote for a resolution which, in the matter of propriety-indeed, I go farther and say in the matter of the rules of this house-should not be before us in its present form.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not share that view.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I think the resolution
which the hon. member for Macleod brought down prior to the 1926 budget was worded exactly the same, and I do not remember any fault being found with it at that time.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was withdrawn.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I recall that it was exceedingly successful.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was withdrawn.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: We want this matter
included in the budget. We want it to be binding on the house, and there is no reason why it should not be. When a question was put to the Prime Minister by the leader of our group as to what this government had done for agriculture, he answered, in effect: "We helped agriculture by putting Mr. Crerar in the cabinet and Mr. Forke in the Senate." If the Prime Minister does not mind my saying so, I would rather have Mr. Dunning. If he is the government's gift to agriculture, by presenting some reduction in the tariff on motor trucks he would make himself even more popular with the people of Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: Impossible.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: And then we could say in truth that he is the government's gift to agriculture.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, the question now before the house is one of importance to the district which I have the honour to represent, in that it bears very largely upon the cost of production of the chief commodity produced in that district. The section of the province of Saskatchewan which I represent is engaged largely in wheat growing. Of late years the combine has come into very general use in the prairie sections of our Dominion and a very necessary companion to the combine is the motor truck-it would seem as though the one were the complement of the other. Shortly before leaving home I was told by one farmer that he had harvested one thousand acres of wheat with one combine, one motor truck and three men. That will give the house an idea of how agriculture is changing its mode of operation. There is also a move on the part of the farming population to lower the cost of production The business of farming has been and still is in what you might call a precarious financial situation, and the only hope of the farmer to succeed is by lowering to a minimum the cost of production. Efforts to lower that cost are being made in various ways. One is in the matter of interest on borrowed money. A few years ago we set up machinery for the establishment of a farm loan board through which the farmer could procure money at minimum rates of interest. The farmer is endeavouring to help himself by the establishing of wheat pools and the elimination of the extra charges of the middleman. It would only be working along the same line if we set our minds towards the lowering of agricultural machinery prices, having in mind that the motor truck is a commodity in the agricultural machinery class. The hon. mem-
214	COMMONS
Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Steedsman
ber for Prince (Mr. MacLean), speaking this afternoon, stated that so far as his section of the Dominion is concerned they would like to see the duty made even lower than that which applies to agricultural machinery. If the party to which the hon. member belongs will implement its own platform as adopted in 1919, the duty will be brought down lower than that at present existing on agricultural machinery. If I am not mistaken, having heard the statement made repeatedly in the house, and having read it also, the 1919 platform was to the effect that the duty on agricultural machinery should be deleted entirely so as to put the agriculturist on a plane where he might succeed. Therefore I think the hon. member for Prince would be quite in order if he would agitate among his own party for the adoption of their own platform, and then we shall have motor trucks down to the point where there will be no duty whatever on them.
Last session we had the pleasing experience of having the Minister of Finance reduce the duty on combines from 10 per cent to 6 per cent. It would not be unfair to aim at having the duty on motor trucks on a par with that on combines. If the party in power does not see its way clear to go all the way with their own platform, they should at least recognize the fact that the motor truck is just as necessary as the combine, because the two go together. Last session we adopted the principle of reducing the duty on the combine from 10 per cent to 6 per cent, putting it on a par with the binder. It is an agricultural implement and we put it in the same class as the self-harvester-binder. Recognizing the fact that the motor truck is necessary to go with the combine, if we cannot get the motor truck free, let us aim at reducing the duty on it, not merely to 10 per cent, which is the duty at which wagons are at present listed, but down to 6 per cent, thus putting it on a par with the combine. I am quite sure, if the minister is convincible, he will easily see that this would be a benefit to the agricultural industry of western Canada.


Mr. JAMES STEEDSMAN (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word in favour of this resolution? It states that the motor truck at the present time is taking the place of the wagon in the delivery of grain to market. That is very true, but that is not the only use to which the motor truck is being put. My hon. friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael), who has just taken his seat, stated that the motor truck should go in combination with the combine. That is also very true, but even where the combine is not in use, it is necessary that motor trucks should be available to the farmers at lower prices.

When we realize what it costs to-day to furnish storage on the farm, we can understand that it is very necessary that the farmers who produce grain, even though they have not a combine, should get their grain to market, get it away to the elevators, of which they are now building many, rather than be put to the expense of furnishing storage on their farms. In western Canada the governments are entering extensively into the business of constructing roads. In the matter of surfacing roads, hauling gravel and so on, the motor truck has put the wagon and the old grey mare out of business. If the farmers are to get a part of that work, that is, of constructing their own roads, it is necessary that they should possess motor trucks.
My hon. friend across the way, in making a plea for increased labour for the residents of his community, overlooked the question: unless you can increase the purchasing power of the patrons of that industry, how are you going to increase production? The only way you can increase production is by increasing the purchasing power of the users of those implements. It has been said in the speech from the throne that Canada is very prosperous. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, from firsthand knowledge, that there is not very much prosperity to-day among the agriculturists of Canada, and unless the cost of production is lowered there will be many men out of agriculture before very long. This is only one way in which agricultural production can be stimulated. This resolution simply asks that the duty be lowered to equal that on other lines of agricultural machinery. I think it is a fair request and that the government should accede to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree entirely with the observations that have been made by those who sit to the left as to the right of the house to express its opinion about this matter at this time. I have not any doubt that under the existing practice in Canada it is competent for the house to express the opinion that any action that is indicated should be taken by the government of the day in bringing down its budget. It is for the government to disregard such opinion or to give effect to it as it pleases, but as to the right of the house to express its opinion, I have no doubt about that, having regard to the practice of the past.


Charles Avery Dunning: I agree with that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In regard to the two
resolutions to which the Minister of Finance has directed attention, it will be seen at once that they are not in the same category. The

Tariff on Motor Trucks-Mr. Bennett
resolution to be moved by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) deals with an entirely different matter from that under consideration. He suggests that consideration should be given by the government to defraying part of the cost of establishing health units. He could not express the matter in another way, because the initiative must be taken by the administration, so all he suggests is that the government should give consideration to the initiation of that policy.
As regards the resolution under discussion, it seems to me it is competent for the House of Commons, disregarding party differences, and dealing with the question merely as members of parliament, to express the opinion that the government of the day should take definite action. That is what this resolution proposes. Whether or not that action should be taken depends upon our conception of the situation in Canada and whether or not we have made up our minds that we desire to establish and maintain a motor industry in the Dominion.
The first question that, it seems to me, must be answered, is: Shall we have a motor industry in Canada? Arising out of that question you have the collateral or complementary question as to whether or not that motor industry shall limit its operations to otheT forms of motor vehicles than trucks or whether it shall extend its operations to the manufacture of trucks. If we conclude that we shall have a motor industry in this country, the only method whereby it can be established is by its being given an equal opportunity with its competitors in other lands. That is why recourse has been had to the tariff in days gone by. We have afforded the motor industry an opportunity to become established in Canada. That opportunity has been, it is true, afforded by a. tariff. In 1926 it was suggested that the tariff was too high, but the protection afforded to the motor industry by the action taken by the government at that time is not less than that which it enjoyed before the tariff was amended. Any hon. gentleman who will take the figures and make the computations n-eed have no doubt with respect to that.
As to whether or not we should have as a branch of that motor industry a motor truck industry, is a matter about which there may be a difference of opinion. For my own part, and I believe I speak for the great majority of Canadians, I think that we should so far as within us lies endeavour to produce within uhis country not only the implements of production, but everything that may be necessary to render us not dependent upon other people for the ability to till our fields, cut and manufacture our forest products, and carry
on the development of our resources. Holding that view, as I believe the majority of Canadians do, it follows that the question I have just asked-shall we maintain our motor truck industry in Canada?-should be answered in the affirmative.
How shall that industry be maintained? It cannot be said that it can compete on equal terms with its competitors in the United States if it is to depend entirely in its early struggles upon itself under the conditions as they exist and without some form of action being taken by parliament that will place that industry on an equality with the industry which enjoys the great market to the south. There you have the greatest motor truck producing industry in the world. There you have the greatest domestic market. There you have a country with the largest export market for motor trucks in the world. We Canadians have concluded-it is too late now for us to say that we will go back upon our determination-that we will establish a motor and motor truck industry in Canada. Having so decided, the question is whether or not we shall now wreck that industry or continue it as a branch of our productive industrial life.
I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I did endeavour, as my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) has done, to ascertain three facts: (I) How many motor trucks did we make in Canada last year; (2) to what extent were these motor trucks manufactured in Canada as distinguished from being a mere assembling of parts imported from other countries; (3) to what extent were we able to supply (a) our domestic requirements, and Ob) the export market. Owing to the very difficulties to which my hon. friend from Macleod has referred I have been unable to satisfy myself upon these points, and I am bound to say that the observations made by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) have left the matter still in doubt, as indeed did the explanation given by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm).
Under these circumstances I submit with all frankness that this house is not in a position to arrive at a definite conclusion on the motion which is now submitted for its consideration. It would be unfair to jeopardize, through lack of knowledge to enable us to exercise a sound judgment, the existence of an industry in this country which we have concluded shall be a branch of our industrial life. On the other hand, I am perfectly satisfied that if this house had the necessary information to enable it to arrive at an accurate conclusion, it would have no hesitancy in pronouncing its judgment, whatever it may be; and realizing as I now do from the observations made
Tariff on Motor Trucks-Division

by every member of this house who has spoken on the resolution that no member is able to speak upon it with any degree of authority because he has before him no recommendation from the tariff board and no precis of facts as to what the result upon the motor truck industry would be should this resolution become effective, I have concluded that the tariff board should be afforded the opportunity to complete its investigations and make known to this house through the proper channels the conclusions at which it has arrived. If there has been exploitation of the consumer, on the one hand, I am sure that that can be remedied by this parliament. On the other hand, if it is true that the protection now afforded is no more than sufficient to enable the industry to be continued in this country, surely there is no man in this house who is disposed to destroy it. Under these circumstances, awaiting the further reports that may be made by the tariff board I propose to move the adjournment of the debate, and to defer my further observations until that information is available. I therefore move the adjournment of the debate.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I was paired
with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion to adjourn the debate.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. McPHEE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Vanoouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ERNST:: I was paired with the hon.
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Charles A. Stewart: I was paired with the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired
with tihe hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.

National Health-Mr. Spencer
Mr. MEROIER (St. Henri). I was paired with the hon member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



NATIONAL HEALTH


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of making grants to the provinces equal to one-third the cost of establishing, and to cover permanently such full time health units as may be organized.
He said: Mr. Speaker, tlhe subject of this resolution is, I think, one of the most important that we have to consider in Canada today. I am asking that the government take into consideration the advisability of making grants to the provinces to help in carrying on full time health units, that is, a form of organization to care for the public health.
These full time health units are not by any means a new development om the North American continent, for I find that in the United States they have no less than 337 established, and of later years they have invaded Canada in the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia. I understand also that the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are anticipating organizing to take advantage of this development.
I should like to bring before the house a resolution passed quite recently at the annual convention of the United Farm Women of Alberta. It is in these words:
Whereas, it is expedient that preventable disease and death in the rural areas of Canada be more efficiently controlled, and
Whereas, full time rural health units have been 'found effective for such purposes in certain provinces of -Canada, and States of the United States of America, and
Whereas, under the [present organization of such units the Rockefeller Foundation will bear for a period of only three years ome-third of the cost of such units;
Be it therefore resolved, that the federal government, through the Minister of National Health at Ottawa, be requested to provide a grant to the provinces of Canada, sufficient to cover permanently the one-third share of the cost of sueh rural health units.
A similar resolution, I understand, has been passed by other public bodies, particularly by organizations that have undertaken the care of public health in rural districts. It is in these districts that such care is most necessary, because for the most part the municipal authorities in our cities have been able to look after
the city population much better than it has been possible to take care of those living in our rural districts. We are realizing to-day that the conservation of the health of the people is of the greatest importance, for although the people are the greatest national asset, those who fail to retain their health very soon become liabilities. Undoubtedly there is no greater worry, particularly to parents, than the fear of sickness and their inability to give their families proper medical care, or to pay the cost of medical care or hospital treatment. We are told that education is of first importance. It certainly is, because ignorance is very detrimental to any community, province or Dominion; but without health what is the good of education? Health, therefore, should be the basis of education. It is the basis of sucess; it is the basis of happiness, and it is the basis of the very best you can get out of life.
The minimum staff necessary for one of these health units will be a medical officer, a public health nurse, a sanitary inspector and a secretary. The area covered by each health unit, comprises usually about six municipal units, serving a territory of 2,000 square miles, which would comprise a population of some 2,200 to 2,500 people. That, of course, would vary according to the particular province in which these health units might be organized and the density of population in area concerned. It would be necessary to set up a public laboratory in each of these districts, the facilities of which-this is most important-would be utilized for the prevention and control of disease. Quantities of vaccine and serum could be kept in the laboratories, which could be given out if necessary to the various practising -physicians. I believe that one of these units could be operated for a sum varying from $12,000 to $20,000. That may seem quite a large amount, but it is not very large considering the fact that the unit covers such a large area. The suggestion is that the cost be divided between the municipalities making up the unit and the provincial government, each paying one third. One-third at present is being paid -by the Rockefeller foundation. Unfortunately the Rockefeller foundation pays its one-third for only three years, but we should consider ourselves very fortunate indeed that such an organization should encourage and indeed make possible the formation of such health units. From either the provincial or the federal point of view, health is recognized as -being of tremendous importance; we ha-ve evidence of that in the existence of a Dominion Department of Health. All we are asking in this resolution is that as these organizations are formed, and as in
National Health-Mr. Spencer

the course of time the Rockefeller foundation withdraw from further payments for the carrying on of this splendid work elsewhere, the federal government should come to their assistance 'by paying one third of the cost of their establishment. We sometimes hear criticism of the americanization of Canada, but there ;s one instance where we are very glad indeed to accept the help that is offered to us, particularly in the matter of care of public health. We cannot expect that to continue forever, and it can be said that if they wish to withdraw at the end of three years they have at least done a tremendous amount of good, not only contributing a third of the cost for each of the three years, but making it possible to start other units in Canada.
To give some idea of the value of these health organizations I would like to refer to what has been done in this connection in the province of Quebec. A health unit was established there about three years ago. During 1926 there were 643 deaths from general causes in the district served by it. Last year the figure dropped to 487, a saving of 156 lives. Infantile mortality dropped from 213 to 160; deaths from tuberculosis from 56 to 51, and deaths from contagious diseases from 86 to 27. Doctor Alphonse Lessard, director of the Quebec bureau of health and Dr. Emile Nadeau, assistant director of the same department, make the following statement:
In countries where health units have been in operation for a period of two or three years, the general death rate has been reduced and especially the infantile mortality, and the death rate for contagious and infectious diseases; with also a marked reduction in the number of eases, this being largely due to better education of the public and immediate control of epidemics,
Dr. H. E. Young, provincial health officer for British Columbia, states that in a single year, through the functioning of a county health unit, one community saved $6,000 in isolation hospital fees.
In citing these facts I am sure I will be supported by hon. members who have had the 'experience of starting up in a pioneer country, as many of us have done in western Canada, and have had to face the problem of the maintenance of health, not only the problem of taking care of the sick, but that of getting the wherewithal to pay the physicians. It is an easy matter to pay a small annual amount by way of tax, as a sort of insurance, to take care of health, but it is a very difficult and a very serious matter for probably seventy or eighty .per cent of the people to have to pay a large doctor or hospital bill when they are sick. Not only is the present system bad I Mr. Spencer.]
for the individual but it is also bad for the medical profession, and I (believe from what I have been told by men in the medical profession, particularly in the rural districts, that more and more such organizations are coming into favour. I understand that the present Minister of Health is very sympathetic to the idea of these health units, and from the discussion had in this house only a year ago I feel sure that a large number of hon. members are very anxious indeed that something should be done by the federal government in the matter of taking greater care of the health of the people of Canada. I am therefore going to ask that this resolution be thoroughly discussed, and I hope it will receive the hearty support of the house.


Peter John Veniot: For the sake of information I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he knows that the Rockefeller donation does not apply to ail of the provinces of the Dominion. They cannot take advantage of it in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island unless they have a medical institution or school.


Henry Elvins Spencer: That strengthens my argument so much more, Mr. Speaker, as to why this resolution should be accepted by the house.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Mr. Speaker, when
the house adjourned at six o'clock my hon friend from Battle River (Mr. Spencer) had concluded his address on a very importan; subject, one which has attracted a good deai of attention on the part of public bodies throughout Canada. As a minister of the crown I have received petitions from various organizations and from two provincial governments suggesting that it would be advisable and in the interests of the health of the public that the Dominion government should make a contribution towards the establishment of health units throughout Canada. As my hon. friend said, the idea of properly organized health units is not new; in the larger municipalities and cities of Canada and throughout the world they have for years had properly organized departments which looked after the public health of the municipality or district. Unfortunately in this important matter, the people in the rural constituencies have not been able to advance as rapidly as the larger centres, probably due to the lack of knowl-

National Health-Mr. King (Kootenay)
edge and interest on the part of the public in the rural centres and the fact that they live a freer life and are not exposed to the dangers of congestion which exist in the larger districts.
But an unusual situation has occurred. It has been found by people who have studied this question that men or women can live in the larger centres with betteT opportunities for health than exist in rural centres. That was not thought to be the fact some years ago; in fact, I am satisfied that if you go into the congested areas to-day you will find the people saying, "We wish we could go to the country where we could get fresh air and the greater opportunities for health that there prevail." It is necessary to study the real cause of that situation. There is no doubt those who are living in the rural districts have better opportunities to enjoy good health and longevity than those who live in the congested areas, but it has come to be known scientifically, through the employment in the department of full-time men to consider the advantages of certain health measures, that in the cities the people do in some respects enjoy better conditions than those of the rural districts.
The resolution before us suggests that the federal government should contribute certain financial support to the provincial governments and they, in turn, to the municipalities or units that may be established. My hon. friend from Battle River to-day reviewed the history of the rural units throughout the United States and Canada. The federal government of the United States became involved in this question during the time of the Mississippi flood, which occurred some two or three years ago. Here they were faced with a national catastrophe that was beyond the control of the local authorities, and it became necessary for the federal bureau of health to adopt certain health measures. The federal authorities of the United States did so, and were able to show through their central organization that it was possible to prevent the great epidemics which might have arisen in that country after the flood. Their experience showed that proper organization and proper attention to the matter on the part of men qualified to deal with such questions can do a great deal to prevent contagion and disease.
Then we have the advantage of the experience gained from the great war, when large groups of men were confined in barracks and camps under what might be considered almost impossible conditions. But owing to improved sanitation and the care taken by health
authorities these men enjoyed splendid health and were in excellent condition. In the year of the influenza epidemic the men who were in camp, under proper medical conditions, did not suffer as greatly as the civilian population. With that experience and a more educated public-because the public has become more educated through the advancement of our educational institutions-we have to-day a real demand by the people of this country for better health measures in the rural municipalities. This is a natural demand and one that should receive the attention of public men, but we as the Dominion parliament in viewing this question must consider our place in the government of this great country. We are carrying on the government of Canada under what is known as the British North America Act, which states definitely that matters pertaining to education and health shall be dealt with locally. At page 436 of Beauchesne you will find the subjects reserved to the Dominion and under their control, and section 11 includes:
Quarantine and the establishment and maintenance of marine hospitals.
Then we find the exclusive powers of provincial * legislatures stated also. Section 7 says:
The establishment, maintenance amd management of hospitals, asylums, charities, eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals.
There seems to have been a desire on the part of those who framed our constitution to give to the people of the provinces local control, which I think is very essential in health matters. Now, it may be suggested that we should continue to leave the control locally with the municipalities or provinces. I am sure that if the Dominion government should enter this field they wovdd be a party to granting money in the expenditure of which they had no control and no say. Many public bodies have come to Ottawa asking that we invade the provincial field and give subsidies and make grants, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has made himself very well understood by stating that the principle is vicious. If we sat down and considered this matter seriously, I think we would agree with that statement. Regarding the interference with provincial health matters in voting subsidies or granting money, we have not only the statement of the Prime Minister but also the statement made in 1928 by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) during the course of a debate upon a matter affecting international health, namely the International Sanitary Convention. A smallpox epidemic
220	COMMONS
National Health-Mr. King (Kootenay)
was under discussion and the question arose as to what authority the Dominion had to deal with matters of that kind. The hon. leader of the opposition was very positive in his statement, which was as follows:
-ibeeause matters of health rest wholly with the local authorities, as we have found out in times past in appeals oin these very matters. The minister may sit here and make suggestions, but the provinces meed not act upon them. This as not a matter on which the Dominion has concurrent powers. It has exclusive powers of quarantine, but this parliament has no power over a province in respect to smallpox.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any doubt about that?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I do not think so; I quite agree with my hon. friend; but I am just quoting his words to that we may have an intelligent discussion upon this matter, which involves the responsibilities not only of the Dominion government, but of the provincial and municipal governments of this country.
This resolution does not ask that we should decide to-night that a subsidy be granted by parliament to establish health units. It says:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should tiake into consideration^ the advisability of making grants to the provinces equal to one-third the cost of establishing, and to cover permanently such full time health units as may be organized.
I am satisfied the government will be glad to take into consideration such discussions as may arise from this resolution. Personally, I have fairly strong opinions upon health matters. I do not believe they are entirely municipal or provincial or national, but are as well of an international character, and that is proven by the conventions into which we have entered with other foreign countries. There is no doubt that the establishment of these health units could be better handled by the local authorities who are in closer contact with the conditions, and if it were considered necessary that a grant should be made then I personally, as a member of this parliament and a minister of the crown, would not be a party to making a grant to the provinces. I would prefer to see the provinces and the Dominion get together and decide upon legislation which would be uniform in character.


Edward Joseph Garland: Including a grant?


John Warwick King: I would not give a grant unless that was done and an agreement reached.


Edward Joseph Garland: You are too vague; I wanted to see if we could get anywhere.


John Warwick King: We are getting along pretty well. It would be an absolute mistake for this parliament to make a grant to the health units in the various provinces without having some control, and I think that matter should 'be developed in the discussion. In the matter of old age pensions, the government acted in order that there might be uniformity throughout Canada, and I think that action has been confirmed as being proper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It applies only to eighty per cent of Canada.


John Warwick King: Yes, that is true at the present time.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Wherein does the minister draw a distinction?


John Warwick King: What distinction?


Peter McGibbon: Between looking after people who are old and looking after people who are sick.


John Warwick King: There is a great distinction.


Peter McGibbon: One is political.


John Warwick King: Nonsense. My hon. friend has a political mind these days.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: If this matter concerns only the provinces, why a Department of National Health?


John Warwick King: The hon. member does not seem to grasp the situation. Our constitution provides that the Dominion government shall control from a health standpoint the immigration into this country; it provides also that quarantine stations shall be maintained, and that interprovincial health matters are to be taken care of, and these things are being done from day to day.


Mr. HEAPS:: If a cow or a pig is sick, the government assumes responsibility by sending ont agents to look after those sick animals; why can it not do the same for human beings?
Mr. KING' (Kootenay): This matter is attracting a good deal of public attention, and it is a proper subject for debate in this parliament, but we should keep in mind the activities of the various governments in order that we may not confuse the functions of the federal and provincial governments.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, may I at the outset congratulate the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) for having introduced this important subject for the consideration of parliament, and allow me also to congratulate the hon. minister (Mr. King, Kootenay), for having gone as far as

National Health-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
he has in admitting the need, although I am sorry that he ended as he did, disclaiming responsibility. The need for such relief as is covered by this resolution has been laid before the house by two hon. members and there is not much I can add, but I will try to interest the house for a few moments.
In my province the provincial Department of Health undertook some real progressive action a few years ago when they established what we know as the travelling school clinics. The school districts organized in groups of three or four and one schoolhouse is turned into a sort of temporary hospital. The mothers bring bedding, beds are set up, and what amounts to a travelling health unit arrives. This consists of a qualified doctor or two, some nurses, and the assistance of local help. I am reminded that a dentist always accompanies the party. These school clinics have in my opinion, done more for Canada in recent years than any other single factor. They have taken young people who otherwise would have been crushed and thwarted in youth-twisted, deformed, warped, stunted, misunderstood,-and made worthwhile Canadian citizens of them. The Minister of National Health knows the effect upon a human body of what may appear to be a minor ailment in youth, something wrong with the tonsils, adenoids, eyes, ears. The child is in school, declared to be stupid, vicious, stubborn, when as a matter of fact none of these things is true; all that is wrong with the child is that some physical defect is present. If this is taken in proper time and cured, the mental and physical development immediately begins to become progressive and the child develops into a healthy and more valuable citizen. In the operation of these school clinics, through the generosity of the physicians, whenever time permitted the examination of adults also took place, and arising out of that examination we discovered, especially in the newer areas in my province, an astonishing number of adults who urgently needed medical attention to a minor or major degree. It brought home to us more clearly than anything else could have done the absolute necessity for some kind of health unit, travelling or stationary, in Canada. Personally I think that if we apply the establishment of these to our .country, we shall find that the travelling variety will be more acceptable to the rural areas, but that is a detail than can be dealt with later.
The question is then asked among our people: Since we find the examination and cure of minor defects well worth while, a blessing greater than others that have come to us in
recent years, why not apply the same thing in a more complete fashion to adults also? If I had my way; if I could influence the administration of the various governments in this country, it would be not merely to establish health units, but to make available to every human being in Canada free medical examination once every year. Hon. members sitting opposite and around me think it is good business to take a piece of iron and tin and paint to an expert once a year for an overhaul; yet when we consider the marvellous delicacy of the human body, the slightest derangement of the organization of which may enormously affect the physical health and usefulness to the state of the individual, there can be no question in our minds that if it be good to examine a machine of tin and iron once a year in order that it shall be effective, it is a thousand times more necessary that the human body should have available as thorough a.n examination.
In our rural areas you may find, and indeed medical men will give you the evidence quite freely, that there are thousands of adults who deliberately refrain either because of distance from doctors, or because of cost, from having that annual examination which is so necessary. There are others who refrain even when they know they are sick and leave medical care to the last possible moment, until in desperation, in fear of very death itself, they at last appeal, frequently too late to the doctor. It is that condition of affairs that we desire to remedy, and 'that is why, just as the minister has admitted, we find in recent years a steady growth of public opinion, demanding recognition by the state of the state's responsibilities in this regard to its citizens.
Let us see whether we .can show more clearly than by mere statements of opinions the urgent need for this remedy. Out of the war there arose one valuable result at least, that is a more complete set of statistics, dealing with the medical health of the soldiers, than we had ever had before. During the period prior to the bringing into effect of the Military Service Act there were 465,984 voluntary enlistments. Of these 74,963 or nearly 75,000 weTe stricken off the roils as medically unfit. This is contained in a letter from General MadBrien to Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, M.P., under date of January 13, 1925. Of the balance, the 300,000 odd, General Sir Arthur Currie, speaking in Montreal on September 12, 1924, before the Taxation and Civil Service convention, said:
Something like 100,000 men went overseas who were physically unfit for service and cost the country some $150,000,000.
The report of that speech is contained in the Ottawa Citizen of September 13, 1924.
222	COMMONS
National Health-Mr. Garland (Boiv River)
Let us come to the period after the Military Service Act amd we find that the total number of applicants for enlistment was 264,355. Of that number only 83,355 were accepted and 181.000, or 68 per cent, were rejected. I do not wish to exaggerate, and I am ready to admit at once that many of the physical defects from which these rejected suffered were not such as to have incapacitated them from civilian activities, but on the other hand a groat portion of them did suffer from defects that handicapped their usefulness to themselves and to the nation. Let me emphasize again another point: these men were not the aged and the infirm or the very young. They were men in the prime of life, in the finest years of manhood. And yet we find that appalling percentage declared to be unfit for military service. No further evidence ought to be required by hon. members than that to signify the extraordinary necessity for state recognition of its responsibilities for the health of its citizens.
But I will give just one more illustration. Turning to the Canada Year Book for 1927-28, at page 942 and otheT pages, I find the following striking information. The number of fully constituted universities in Canada is twenty-three; the number of insane asylums in Canada is fifty-two. There are more than twice as many insane asylums in Canada as there are universities. We now take the question of first-year admissions to both these types of institutions, and we find in the year 1925-26 there entered Canadian universities a total of 3,326, while there were placed in insane institutions 6,301. We take the total number of inmates of universities and the total number of inmates of insane asylums, and we find that occupants of universities totalled that year 9,525 and of insane asylums nearly three times as many, or 25,259. This is bad enough, but it does not tell the whole story. There is not an hon. member that does not know that there is not a province in Canada at this moment, except possibly Prince Edward Island, that is not in crying need of mere facilities for the greater care of the mentally defective. I am also satisfied that if we could have this annual examination, if we could make available to our people cheap but efficient medical attention, it would enormously reduce the number of those who through some minor defect gradually develop a neurotic condition which leads them on to nervous disorders often resulting in breakdown and causing them to become at least temporary inmates of mental asylums.
Now I come to the hon. minister's closing remarks. I expected that he would ring in 
the good old British North America Act and the responsibility of the [provinces. Mr. Speaker, in a question of this kind, involving the most vital part -of life itself, that is health, I say that those who drafted the constitution either have been misunderstood or should now be reinterpreted if they meant to say that the federal government bad no responsibility in the matter. I will go further. I just happened to turn up the estimates shortly after dinner this evening, and I find on page 21 that the federal government is providing to expend on health of animals, $2,550,000. Why, if we had that much to devote to the purpose of this resolution we would be satisfied with that as a commencement for this year. I turn now to page 62 of the estimates, providing for expenditure under Pensions and National Health, in order *to find what is the contribution under the constitution of the federal government to national health. Separate the items that are devoted solely to pensions and care of soldiers -by the way it is interesting to note that the constitution is wide enough to enable the federal government to contribute to the health welfare of a soldier who has again become a civilian, and who is no longer an employee of the federal government, but it is not wide enough to embrace the rest of humanity in the country. That puzzles me. However, I will take only the items that almost hit you in the eye as you look at them. For the administration of the acts respecting food and drugs, including the Laboratory of hygiene, there is provided $163,500; for pollution of inland waters and Public Works Health Act, $26,000; for marine hospitals, including burial expenses of destitute deceased mariners and grants to institutions assisting sailors, $250,000.
I have no doubt that that includes -more than health; it includes assistance to sailors, so I am being rather liberal in the 'estimate that I shall make in a moment. I cannot for the life O'f me understand why the fathers of confederation decided' that it was advisable the state should be responsible for the health of these sailors and not for the health of the rest, of the citizens of the country. Then item 238 provides $100,000 for venereal diseases. I find that these items aggregate $539,000, which is the federal government's 'Contribution for national health. Compare that with $2,500,000 for the health of animals.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend
argue that the expenditure on health of animals is not very largely necessary for the protection of the health of mankind?

National Health-Mr. Gershaw
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River). By all
means that is so. I am not suggesting for a moment that we are administering the Health of Animals Acts and all contained therein merely t.o try- to prolong the life of a pig to one hundred years or the life of a cow to two thousand years. I am simply stating the fact that we are spending that much to protect -the health of the people of this country from diseases from animals, -and I say, why not go further? If you have 'broken the constitution to that extent, why not break it a little more?
Then the minister came down to the question of local control, and he decided in his own mind most definitely that this is a question solely for local control. Nobody knows better than the minister that if he is gomg to leave this work entirely to the mercies of municipal effort, he will never get anywhere. No -one knows better than he the enormous burdens that are now placed on the backs of municipalities and their 'incapacity to meet them, and among such burdens not a small one is that resulting from the absolute inefficiency of an administration which brings immigrants into the country and asks somebody else to look after them when they are sick or destitute. I .cannot for the life of me believe that hion. -members -of this house in the full possession of their reason in this year 1930 arc going to contend that an opinion held by the fathers of confederation over sixty years ago should of necessity be the opinion to be held bo-day on all these questions. There is no question that is more truly a national one than the health -of our citizens; there is none more important to the future of the country. When national necessity arose we did not hesitate to go ou-t into the highways and by-ways and grab these men and put them into uniform. We did more than that. We established military dimes. It was found worth while to spend lots of money on the establishment of military clinics for -the building uip of these men, for the improvement of their physique, for the removal of varicose veins and the adjustment of fallen arches and other defects, in order that they might be sent overseas to become cannon fodder. It was simple enough to find money for that purpose. It ought to be just as simple to find the money to-day.
In closing my pant of this case, I appeal to the minister and to the government to reconsider their position on this matter. I have no objection to the minister asking the prov-

inces to come into consultation with him, but I do refuse to him the right to say forthwith that he will not consider the question of a grant and I ask him -to reconsider that portion of his remarks.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: I wish to make a few obervations on this resolution, and I hope that the minister will see his way clear at least to give encouragement to the establishment of health units throughout the country, and that his department will at least do something to coordinate the efforts that are being made.
One great advantage that I see in the health units is the educational effect that it will have upon the people, particularly in the rural districts. One of the chief aims in sending a patient to a sanatorium or health resort is that he may there learn how best to take care of himself and how best to protect his friends and relatives when he returns to them. The very presence of officers in a health unit will have the effect upon the people of inducing them to think of health matters. It will also give the officers the opportunity to spread the gospel of preventive measures. After all, in these days we stress the prevention of disease more than the cure, and we are able to do a good deal to prevent the diseases which a few years ago caused so many deaths, especially among the children of this country. Any doctor who has gone into a rural district and seen four or five children in one family suffering from advanced diphtheria or some disease of that kind must certainly wish that preventive measures had been taken in these cases. Much can be done to prevent such diseases as diphtheria, scarlet fever and typhoid fever, in fact with sufficient care and by the use of vaccines we could almost promise that they would be eradicated. The great advantage I see in having some Dominion supervision or control over health units is the uniformity which it would bring about and the use that could be made of the experiences of one district in establishing units in other districts. Perhaps some one will say that this is a step nearer to the experiment of state medicine. There are those who believe that state medicine will come in the near future. This apparently would be a step in that direction, but it would make it easier for the men and women, the boys and girls, in the rural districts to get the mediea' attention which they so badly need.
I quite appreciate the minister's reference to the cost of such a scheme, and I think that some rearrangement of taxation fields should be made. If the Dominion government is
National Health-Mr. Kaiser

getting what it should get, and the provincial governments are getting what they should get, then each government should be able to carry on. However, at the present time the provinces are doing a great deal of social and health work, and their revenues should be sufficient to establish these health units. Certainty I believe the people are desirous that those subsidies should be sufficient to enable the provincial governments to do that work well.
I think the system of health units will work in splendidly with the system of municipal hospital districts which we have in the western provinces. I was going to discuss the question of travelling clinics which we are fortunate in having in Alberta, but the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has already mentioned them. The medical profession in that province welcome the travelling health clinics. They go into districts and give attention to children who otherwise would not get that attention. They have operated on many thousands of children without a single mishap or fatality. We feel that they are doing a splendid work, and I do think the health units would fit into the system which has been there established of encouraging travelling clinics and hospital units.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Mr. Speaker, I desire to refer to one point raised by the Minister of Health (Mr. King, Kootenay). While I was a member of the provincial board of health in the province of Ontario we took the ground that the Dominion parliament had the prime responsibility in regard to public health. We submitted the question to a distinguished jurist, Mr. Justice Riddell, now of the Supreme 'Court of Ontario. His opinion was that the responsibility for the public health of the Dominion rested with the Dominion government. These were his reasons for reaching that opinion. Public health as understood to-day 'had no existence in 1867. The first effort to provide public health in the Dominion was in 1882, when the Liberal government in the province of Ontario placed at the head of its health department the distinguished Doctor Bryce. The science of preventive medicine not being known in 1867, the British North America Act could not possibly deal with it. That act provided that hospitals, asylums, and eleemosynary or charitable institutions should be assigned to the provinces, but the only thing that was known in regard to public health at that time was the matter of quarantine. Quarantine was assigned to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament.

Public health matters, as I say, are not exclusively assigned to the provinces by the British North America Act and as public health men we believe that the Dominion must necessarily play its part in this work. It should be remembered that hospitals and asylums are intended to take care of those people who are sick and to cure them. The great object of public health work is to prevent people from becoming sick, but preventive medicine as understood to-day as a science was unknown in 1867, the only thing in connection with public health at that time being, I repeat, quarantine, and this was assigned to the Dominion parliament. We believe that if to-day the fathers of confederation were drawing up a new charter for Canada, public health would be regarded as a national undertaking the same as it is in England, France, the United States and in every other civilized country in the world.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I agree with what has
been said of the value of preventive medicine. I think the general public are coming to realize that preventive medicine is of the very first importance. I am interested in the prevention of goitre in Grey county, with which I will deal in a moment. Because of that interest I had some communications with the medical health officer for Owen Sound. Owen Sound is in North Grey, and I notice that the hon. member for that constituency (Mr. Telford) is in his seat. The medical health officer of Owen Sound wrote me:
The older generation of medical men are not convinced yet of the urgent necessity of more advanced work in the profession in preventive medicine, but I believe the younger men are being trained with this end in view and I have great hopes for the future.
Speaking of Owen Sound, he says:
Every step I have taken here to advance this work has been opposed. We now have free clinics for the early diagnosis of T.B., X-rays included, free clinics for the treatment of venereal disease, free baby clinics and now the last year a free dental clinic for school children. Now that these things are functioning, the profession and the public are convinced of their value.
He continues:
Last year we had the lowest death rate of children under one year of age in Ontario, and Victoria, British Columbia, was the only place in Canada that excelled us. That is the fruit that any municipality can pick as a result of preventive medicine applied to disease.
Then he adds, and I give this for the benefit of the Alberta members who have spoken:
I regret to say we are away behind the Mother country ini such matters, and as a matter

National Health-Miss Macphail
of fact we are behind some of our own western provinces, where clear vision is being used and the old shackles of custom are being broken, and wonderful results are being obtained.
I do think that is true, that Alberta has shown very clear vision on this question of public health. I cannot believe that we are supposed always to be bound by the brains of the fathers of confederation. They had very excellent brains, and they used them in their day and generation; and I have no doubt they thought that we would do the same. I feel that if they came back to-day they would be thoroughly ashamed of us. I cannot have any respect for anyone who is still relying solely on his grandfather's brains.
In Grey county we suffer very much from goitre. I think that all the counties bordering on the Great lakes may be said to be goitre areas, caused partly by a deficiency of iodine. It is true at least that in the county of Grey we are great sufferers from this dread disease, and it has come to the place where the individual and family unit cannot efficiently cope with it We need some larger unit that is more generously financed. I am thinking particularly of this disease when I urge the acceptance of the resolution. It is true we suffer from other diseases in Grey county but not to the same extent as goitre. The truth is that if a very simple preventive were taken in the early years of the child's life the goitre would possibly never develop. These measures are not taken and the result is a great economic loss, much suffering and nerve strain, resulting in many cases in death. I feel sure that if a survey of Grey county was made it would bo found that possibly more than fifty per cent of the total population suffer from some form or other of goitre. I tried to have this survey made. I took the matter up with the Dominion government. The provincial member for South Grey took it up with the provincial government. We tried to get in touch with the Rockefeller Foundation and with the Metropolitan Life Insurance company. In all we failed and the survey has not been made. It ought to be made, and then having been made measures should be taken to prevent goitre not only in the county of Grey but in all counties where it prevails.
The first experiment in the way of an attempt to find a prevention for goitre was made in 1916 in Akron, Ohio, by Doctors Kimball and Marine. It was so successful tlhat it was tried out in Switzerland, a country that suffered very much from goitre, and1 there it was so successful tlhat in1 1918 the goitre commission of Switzerland recommended the use throughout the whole country of iodine in the form that they had found to be effective for that 2419-15
purpose. We have been doing nothing about it at all. I find that tlhe farming people are in a worse financial condition this year than they have been for some time, but farming conditions for quite a long period, certainly since 1920, have 'been very far from good, and farm men, women, and children suffer greatly because they are afraid to call the doctor in, fearing that they cannot pay his bill; and so they keep on being sick, far below the standard that should be their rightful standard of life. That is true even in what appear to be prosperous communities. I know too that children often are allowed to continue with tonsils and adenoids that are bad, with the result that the whole outlook, indeed the success in life of that child, is adversely affected1. I think that a combination of the units of the municipality, the province and! the staite should be response ible for the health of each and every individual. It was mentioned too, I think by the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland)1- possibly he was dealing with insanity-that crime could be in a measure prevented1 if the health of each individual was assured from childhood on. I believe that crime is very often due to poor health. If people are in good health their temper is so much better, and I can illustrate that by myself. Since my tonsils have been removed, my temper is very greatly improved. I recommend! it to the other members of the house.
I do not know that there is very much else that I want to say except that more and more we are coming to realize that the staite, or some combination of the state and smaller units, is responsible for the health of the individual. Every person needs good health as a basis for life. Good living, happiness and a useful life can scarcely exist unless there is good health. Of course, there are exceptions to that rule.
I wish to congratulate the member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) for introducing this resolution. I am grateful to him, and grateful too that he introduced it in exactly the right way and so met 'the favour of the somewhat critical finamoe minister.
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-On-tario: I feel like congratulating the member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) for his efforts to stir up some interest in this house and the country on this question. I would like to impress upon the minister and upon the government that this is the greatest question before the people of Canada to-day, and it is the duty of the government, sir, in my opinion,



National Health-Mr. McGibbon
to perform the functions of a government, that is. to protect and look after the sick. I think it was the late John Bright who once said:
The work of all governments rests in the cottage and unless the light of your legislation can shine there and the beauty and the excellence of your statesmanship be reflected there, you have yet to learn the duty of government and your people will not be a happy people or your nation a great nation.
It is rather hard to understand the attitude of the government on this question, not only now but in days gone by. They spend millions of dollars bringing people into this country, but when it comes to keeping them in good health, preserving their lives and making them good citizens of this country, they absolutely fail. I was in the 'house, sir, when this department was brought into existence, and I say now what I have said1 on previous occasions, that I wonder whether the results have justified it, because there is nothing that this government is doing to-day that was not equally well done 'before the existence of a department of health. They give us their sympathy, tout what good is sympathy to a dying man? True, we have the British North America Act; and is it not wonderful, sir how this British North America Act can be broken on behalf of the principle that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) calls old *age pensions, but when you want something for the health of the people it stands up like a barrier that cannot be surmounted? What is the difference between handing money out of the federal treasury to help keep the aged of this country and1 handing out money to help restore the sick andi the poor in health? The minister says he thinks this can be done better locally. I quite agree; I think any organization in the country -can do better than the government fans done. What organizations are looking after the people to-day? First, the private individual, then the medical men of this country, who on an average, I think it is quite safe to say, give gratuitously 30 or 40 per cent of their earnings to keep the people healthy. Then we have the scientists, men like Doctor Banting and others who have given us the benefit of their discoveries which they could have commercialized for a great many millions of dollars-given them for the benefits of humanity. Then we have organizations like the Social Service Council and the Red Cross Society, which go far into the back woods and the sparsely settled parts of this country. They are taking up the burdens of both the provincial and the federal governments, but when they came to this government last year and asked for a paltry grant of $25,000 which would not have covered their 
expenditures on behalf of this government, the very man we see opposite to-night telling us his sympathies are with the people of this country turned them diown.
Now, sir, what are we going to do; who is to take up this problem if the government of Canada does not do it? What was one of the main reasons for bringing this department into existence? As the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has said, it was the low standard of health so far as the manhood of this country was concerned. During the war it was found that the health of young men of military age, in the prime of life, was so poor that the government of the day thought it advisable to bring this department into existence, not for local, municipal or provincial causes but to look after the national health of Canada. The Dominion government has already invaded the provincial field; we have done it on other occasions and for different reasons. For example, the previous government gave direct grants of about $25,000,000 to roads; they gave direct grants of some $20,000,000, I think, to housing; they gave grants to technical education and to agriculture direct from the treasury of Canada, showing that it is quite within the purview of this government to give assistance to the municipal or provincial organizations of Canada to help carry on this great work if they wish to do so. The bon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser) put his fiuger on the very crux of the matter when he said that public health was an unknown science when the British North America Act was framed; this is something that has come into existence since. Then the principal work was mending the wrecks of humanity from the battlefields of life. To-day the great work of the Department of Health and the medical profession is the war against disease, not merely as affecting the individual but as applied to the nation, and in that regard we have been successful in many ways.
I gave the figures a year ago; I do not want them placed on Hansard again, but they showed how the death rate has decreased in diseases such as tuberculosis, typhoid fever, diphtheria, and so on. But, sir, the day has come when this burden is too great for the municipalities, when it is too great for the provinces, and when the Dominion government must step in and aid in the work. I will tell the Minister of Health that if he does not do it the government that will very shortly follow him will do it.
Last year I took up this question from another aspect; I considered the economic phase of it, and without repeating the figures at this time I showed that this country was losing annually from $120,000,000 to $250,000,000

National Health-Mr. Howden
through preventable illness, accidents and deaths. Yet in spite of this great economic loss, in spite of the inroads made by the ravages of disease and death upon the people of this country, the minister and the government tell us they can do nothing,, that this is a provincial and municipal matter and that they are not going to put further into application what the Prime Minister calls a vicious principle, which was so convenient before the last election in regard to old age pensions.
I just want to repeat that this is one of the greatest problems before this parliament. It is a problem that sooner or later will have to be dealt with, because the cost in a country like Canada, extending as it does from the Atlantic to the Pacific and including thousands of miles of country sparsely inhabited, is too great for any municipality, or for any individual body, and the Dominion government must come to their assistance.
I wish, sir, to ask the minister for some assistance for that grand organization known as the Red Cross Society. They go out and solicit funds from the richer parts of the province and they spend them in the backwoods where the inhabitants are ten, twenty, thirty, or sometimes fifty miles away from a doctor and hospital. They, have established outposts in those isolated regions and are caring for the sick and needy of this country in a manner which certainly merits the support of this government. I was surprised when I learned from some of the officials of that organization that they came to the government last year and asked for a grant of only $25,000 for the furtherance of their work in Canada. They fell me such a figure would not cover the actual expense of the work they are doing for the federal government, but their request was refused. Why, sir, I told them they should come here and ask for a quarter of a million. That money is being spent upon the people of this country; it is being spent wisely and well upon the poor and needy, and I think the government might well come to the assistance of this and other organizations working along the same line. I can see great advantages in direct grants over other methods of doing this work, because such a system would incur no duplication of organization. That work is largely carried on without remuneration and the money so given by this country would provide more efficient services than could be given by any method this government could employ. If they undertook to duplicate it a large amount would be spent in salaries and overhead, and1 there would be a duplication which is not justified or necessary.
2419-15J
I have much pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in supporting this resolution as I have supported all resolutions of this kind in the past, and I hope it may carry conviction to the heart of the minister so that in the supplementary estimates some provision may be made to carry out the suggestion embodied in the resolution.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to let this occasion pass without saying a word in support of the motion of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer). Full time health units do not differ essentially from the ordinary municipal health units; they are composed of a board of health, a health officer, a health inspector and a secretary, differing from the ordinary municipal unit in that the health unit is composed of several municipalities, which pay fifty per cent of the cost. Twenty-five per cent of the cost is borne by the provincial government, and the remaining 25 per cent by the Rockefeller foundation.
The government takes the attitude that this should be a purely provincial matter, and that for one reason or another the federal government is not in a position to make a grant towards this enterprise. I maintain .that the health of Canada is of first importance and should be the first consideration of the Canadian government. Whatever view pray lhave been taken of this subject by the fathers of confederation, I do not think it can be questioned for one moment that the health of the Canadian people is one of the most important considerations of the Canadian government. For that reason I do not see how the government can avoid-if I may use that expression-participating in this matter.
The purpose of full time health units is to reach the newer, sparsely settled rural areas where there are few doctors and no nurses. There is no doubt that the people in these areas have a crying need for medical service. In Manitoba, the oldest of the western provinces, there is dire need of medical service, and there are many districts where there are no medical men. Manitoba, with its narrow river farms, its clustered villages, its small quarter-section farms, contains many districts in need of medical service. Every province has a flourishing medical college turning out in large numbers young medical men of a very good type; other medical men cross the ocean from the old country, but still our country districts are in need of medical attention. I suppose the reason is that most medical men prefer to remain in tlhe cities, and then there is the factor to be considered that in the outermost rural districts it is very
22S

National Health-Mr. Adshead
difficult for the average doctor to make a living. If he is not substantially assisted by the municipality it is very difficult for him to live. There is another factor which is worthy of consideration, and that is the taking up by American rural districts of the graduates from our medical schools. It is not difficult for a Canadian medical graduate to obtain a livelihood in a thriving and progressive settlement in the States, and for that reason the rural districts of Canada have to suffer.
At the beginning of this century the death rate in Canada per thousand was 19 in the cities and 15.2 in the country. The difference is not surprising because the people in the city were exposed to infection, contagion, and accidents which were not so prevalent in the country. Twenty years after the opening of the century the urban rate had fallen to 13 per thousand while the rural rate had fallen to 14. The reason is very obvious. Health boards, health inspectors, health regulations, and proper supervision in the cities have been responsible for this improvement.
This matter has been a burning question throughout Canada, and a few days ago I received a memorial from the Confederated Women's Institute of Canada. They adopted a series of hypotheses, and I could not do better than to read them to -the house. They were as follows:
Whereas it has been proven that the cost of unnecessary illness and death in Canada is very great, amounting to millions of dollars and thousands of lives annually.
And whereas, it has been amply demonstrated, particularly in the larger cities, that full-time health service results in an immediate fall in sickness and death rates.
And whereas, in most rural communities the people have been forced to rely upon the parttime services of physicians for the carrying on of community health measures-an arrangement which is at best ineffective.
And whereas, the most satisfactory method of securing results in rural and small urban areas as regards the control of communicable disease and the reduction of general mortality rates has been demonstrated in Quebec, British Columbia and many states in the United States to be by means of the county health unit-
This would correspond to our Canadian full-time health units.
-such units supporting a full-time health office, sanitary inspector, public health nurse and secretary.	_
And whereas, organized health conservation should he made applicable to the whole Dominion, it is probable that the achievement of such an ideal can only be made, possible by the financial participation of the Dominion government as in the case of successful venereal disease control scheme already in operation.

I repeat that I am entirely in accord with the motion of the hon. -member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) and I wish to congratulate him for having brought this matter before the house.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of attention to this debate, and I do not propose to add much to it for it would be trying to paint the lily or gild refined gold. A few days ago I stated that I believed in Liberal policies but I did not believe in Liberal practices. In order to refresh my memory I looked up some of the statements which were made at that notable convention of Liberals held in 1919. That was a very enthusiastic convention and when this question of national health arose the British North America Act did not seem to have any place in the discussion. There were present at that convention the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and they fell in line with the idea of a nation's health being federal business. The Liberal party ought not to forsake those policies now; they should not now shield themselves behind the British North America Act as the Minister of Health, Mr. King (Kootenay) has done, I would like to read some of the remarks made in those days, outlining some of the principles which they were not going to forsake. Speaking to the resolution as to national health, which I will read in a moment, the proposer said in part:
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: from the lips of orators, statesmen, politicians, public speakers all our lives, we have heard this statement, when the speaker has got worked up to a proper frenzy Oif oratory, "The citizen-the boy or the girl-is the nation's greatest asset." In our recollection they have immediately forgotten about it as soon as the echo has died away from the ring of sincerity. Immediately they have turned their attention to the standardizing of the physical well-being of pigs, and calves, and horses and other animals; to the conserving of forests; to raising the standard of agriculture-which is well and fitting and in its place, as it ministers to the welfare of the citizenship. But from a federal standpoint,-
That is the point I should like the house to note.
-they have entirely overlooked the conservation of the life of that citizenship.
Then the mover goes on to say:
As women, however, we have come to the convention with a clearly defined idea, and that is that the citizen is the basis of the nation's wealth; that the citizen is more important even than the production of wealth; and that what affects the welfare of the citizen and the life of the citizen is of primary importance.

National Health-Mr. MacLaren
Just before the resolution was put, this was said:
The great issue, in the opinion of the women at least, is that the Liberal party shall place in its .platform a plank, pledging itself to support vigorous, aggressive, public health measures with a view to conserving life and raising the standard of the physical efficiency of the citizens.
In order that there may be no doubt as to whether they thought this should be done by the provinces or not, the resolution speaks for itself, and I hope it will overcome the conscientious and scrupulous objection of the Minister of Health:
I have much .pleasure in moving the following resolution-
I believe, Mr. Speaker, you were present at this particular convention, as I see that fact mentioned.
-whereas human life and physical efficiency are the nation's greatest assets,-
Not the provinces.
-and whereas the conservation and improvement thereof should be the country's first care;
Therefore, this gathering of Liberals in convention assembled pledges itself to a vigorous prosecution of the measures best calculated to conserve the life and improve the physical standard of our Canadian citizenship.
I read this and make this short address just in order that the consciences and memories of my hon. friends on the other side may be somewhat revived and stimulated; and the objection which the minister has had in mind as regards the application of the British North America Act will surely disappear if he will consult his colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), because the latter, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Speaker all supported the motion that the national health of the citizens was the nation's greatest asset, and certainly a matter of federal importance. I need scarcely mention the fact that the resolution carried.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert):: The importance of the question of national health, of permanent health units and many other means of dealing with the prevention of disease and the promotion of public health, is very generally recognized. It needs no argument to press forward this most vital question, one of the most important that can be discussed. On the other hand, it has been regarded in the house that public health matters belong very largely to the provinces. It may be desirable to make a change at some time, but at present this is largely a provincial matter and we should view it as it stands to-day. I do not question for a moment the value of the discussion in the house, but at the same time I think we could get ahead
more rapidly if we proceeded in accordance with conditions as they are. Therefore I believe the proper procedure, the way to make the greatest advance, is to proceed through the provinces, and I ask these hon. members who have so admirably discussed the matter to-night whether there have been debates of this character in the provincial parliaments. Surely the members of the provincial parliaments will admit that this is a very important subject. If so, I would suggest that they obtain the initial action from the provinces and let them then come to the federal parliament. I believe that to a considerable extent we are directing our energies in the wrong direction. We are beginning with the federal parliament; we should begin with the provincial legislatures; let them approach the federal government and proceed in the direction of existing conditions with the prospect of obtaining some results. I do not think we can expect the federal government to take the first action, to be followed by the provinces. If the reverse process were followed, we would make better progress.


Mr. M. J. MALONEY (South Renfrew):: I join with the hon, gentlemen who have preceded me in offering to the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) my sincere congratulations on having brought before the house this very important question. As has been said many times to-night, there is no matter of greater importance to a country as a whole than the health of its citizens. When I look over the resolution I find it hard to realize how we might value such work in terms of dollars and cents. It was said by one hon. member that if we spent as much from this parliament in connection with the health of human beings in Canada as we do for the health of sheep, cattle and swine, the provinces would be entirely satisfied. I quite agree with him in that regard, because it' would mean the addition of perhaps twenty-five per cent to what the provinces are already spending in this direction.
It is difficult to estimate the value of these health units and travelling clinics. In Ontario much work is being done along that line and in the few minutes during which I shall take up the time of the house I should like to mention a few of the potent facts coming to my attention. Some ten or twelve years ago the Department of Public Health at Toronto sent throughout the province a travelling exhibit showing the methods of contracting tuberculosis, also the methods of preserving milk and preparing food in a manner which would leave those articles free from tuberculosis. They had a moving picture

National Health-Mr. Maloney
machine which depicted these microscopic germs plainly on the canvas. They showed how a fly would come into contact with these germs and how the same fly would come into contact with many articles of food which we are daily using. They finally showed how that could foe prevented. Prior to that summer troubles with children, summer cholera, indigestion and gastric troubles of many kinds were common. To-day as a result of that exhibition summer gastric and intestinal troubles in children are really the exception. The mothers are deeply interested in familiarizing themselves with scientific methods of preparing infants' food, and the result is that throughout the greater part of this province to-day infant feeding is done in the proper manner. Then there is the proper treatment of milk and cream and the cleanliness connected with the manufacture of dairy butter. These things have placed Ontario butter ahead even of the New Zealand butter that is coming into this country by the millions of .pounds. These are a few of the results of that travelling exhibition.
In addition, we have to-day travelling clinics, dealing not only with the care and preparation of food, but with the examination of children at school and the examination of adults in the outlying parts of the province.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) gave a very clear outline of the many afflictions of childhood which might readily be cured or prevented, but which if neglected often resulted in the child becoming an incompetent citizen. In that he was quite right. The travelling clinics in Ontario have their school nurses, who go into the school and examine every child. They detect all the physical defects in that child, whether in relation to tonsils, adenoids, teeth or eyesight, and all these things are reported on. The clinic, if it is so desired, will remove the tonsils, attend to the teeth, and so forth, but never until the parents of the child are completely satisfied to have it done. The first and primary duty is to advise the parents. Prior to these clinics many of the parents who were able to pay for this medical service were unaware of the conditions that existed among the children, but as a result of the work of the clinics many children are today healthy who might otherwise have fallen into an enfeebled condition. Not only that, but goitre is also being treated by the public health authorities of this province, and the day will come when goitre will be unknown in Ontario. Similarly with the diseases of the chest, a most important mat-t-Mr. Maloney.]
ter in this and every other province1. The travelling clinics examine those suspected of having tuberculosis, those who have been exposed to the disease, and those known to be afflicted. An X-ray examination is given, anid the services of a specialist who travels around from place to place is made available to these people, whether they be rich or poor. There is no charge made. The result is that people are taught how t,o avoid tuberculosis, and those who have the disease in the incipient stage are warned and taught how to take care of themselves, so that in ninety-five per .cent of the .cases the disease never progresses. Those who are more seriously afflicted with the trouble are taught how to take care of themselves and are advised along proper lines. Much is being done in this way to stamp out that particular disease'.
Another affliction which unfortunately visited this province last year was infantile paralysis. Up to a few years ago, once an individual was afflicted with infantile paralysis he was either incapacitated for life or died. A bright, little child three or four or five years of age, active and happy, might one day be suddenly stricken down by infantile paralysis; the next day the child might be dead, or if he recovered would be left with one or two limbs, or perhaps all four, paralysed-a helpless invalid for life. But due to the efforts of the health authorities of the provinces the recent epidemic has left few or no marks. I believe great credit must be given to the province of Manitoba for the way in which they handled a veTy serious epidemic in that province two years ago. Following their experience, the outbreak of the disease in Ontario last year was well taken care of by the provincial health authorities, and the serum, which is the only known remedy, was distributed free throughout the province even to those who were in a position to pay for it. As a result of the activities of the provincial health department, the epidemic last year left few cripples in Ontario.
We have, in addition, the free distribution of insulin to those who are unable to pay for it. Insulin is doing great work and has saved many lives in the last few years.
I come to another important question, and that is maternal mortality. It is a fact that within the last year, and year after year, we have been losing from 7,000 to 9,000 or 10,000 mothers in Canada, mostly because of the fact that they have unskilled attendants, and because the mothers are untrained themselves in the care and treatment of their own case up to the time of birth. If the department of health of the provinces were in a position

National Health-Mr. McQuarrie
to send through the outlying districts someone to instruct 'very fully these prospective mothers, and mothers, in the methods of treatment and care necessary to prevent infection, maternal mortality would drop to a minimum. There is no reason why 9,000 mothers should lose their lives in this country each year as a result of maternity, and the sooner the government realizes that, the better, I am sure, it will be for them and for the country. The government must remember that the citizen of Canada is the property of the state, and it is the duty of this government to protect the citizen in every possible way.
State medicine has been mentioned to-night as the thing for Canada. That is not what is required at all. State medicine is not included in this resolution. This is merely asking for an advisory body, more by way of education for the people, and in the outlying districts, if necessary, for someone to act in behalf of the health of the people, and to act free of charge to those who are unable to procure a doctor.
In conclusion, may I say that the doctors in Canada are the most self-sacrificing body of men in the country. They are not only working themselves out of a job by endeavouring to procure information that will enable them to prevent disease of every character, but they have in the past fifteen years done more to abolish disease than any other class of people in the whole wide world have done to abolish their own particular work. In this way they sacrifice in many cases their means of existence, but they are prepared to go on sacrificing, and for that reason they are anxious that the federal government should add to the funds now being made available for the health of the people by provincial departments of health. I could tell you, Mr. Speaker, of the sacrifices that many doctors are making; I could tell you of doctors who travel by night and by day, over good and indifferent roads, in fair weather and foul, journeying twenty, thirty and forty miles to visit a patient, all without hope of gain or reward, simply because they are fulfilling a duty imposed upon them when they receive the degree of doctor of medicine, and that duty is to save life and ameliorate suffering wherever they can. That is what actuates every physician in the discharge of his duty. I say to this government, that if they will hand over to the provinces twenty-five per cent of what they are spending to-day on public health matters, I am sure that at the end of ten years, in the better health and increased happiness of the people, the expenditure will be repaid a thousandfold.


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: On many other occasions, Mr. Speaker, matters bearing upon the subject of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) have been discussed, and the hon. member is to be commended for presenting it to the house. I am not going to enter into a discussion with all the medical gentlemen in this chamber on the question whether or not medicine should be nationalized, but we all recognize the splendid work the medical profession is doing all over the country. As I understand it, there is no intention on the part of the mover of the resolution to interfere in any way with the medical profession. His idea is that there should be some cooperation on the part of the Dominion government with the provincial authorities in health matters. I believe in such cooperation. I do not think the Dominion government should continue a healtn department that does not do anything to advance public health. So far as I can ascertain, the department as at present constituted does not justify its existence. The government must do one of two things: either give the department something to live for, or cut it off. So far as I am concerned I think the Dominion should take an interest in health matters.
I agree entirely with the remarks of the hon. member for Muskoka^Ontario (Mr. Mc-Gibbon) as to the splendid work which is being done by the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Red Cross Society, and other similar organizations. I have often thought it a shame that it should be necessary to appeal to the public for subscriptions for the purpose of looking after the health of the people of this country. In my constituency perhaps there is no necessity for anything of this kind, or possibly not to the extent that there is in other places, but I also have received many resolutions, particularly from women's organizations, advocating that something of this kind be done. I know that in the remote parts of British Columbia there is dire and urgent necessity for some provision whereby proper medical and nursing attention may be given.
I do not think it is sufficient for the government to say: We have not the money. The government seems to have the money when it wishes to spend any. The government is content to spend a lot of money here in Ottawa to tear down buildings and provide for a park which nobody seems to want, but when it comes to expenditure on public health, the excuse for inaction is that no money is available.

National Health-Mr. Dunning
I submit, sir, that the Minister of. National Health (Mr. King, Kootenay) should take this matter seriously. He is a man who undoubtedly knows perfectly well that the arguments he advanced this evening are entirely without foundation. As a medical man he must know he is simply beating the air. I believe he would like to see his department amount to something, but of course being a loyal supporter of his leader at all times he must do as he is told, and to-night when he said that really this was not a matter for the Dominion government, I think he was saying something that he himself did not believe.
The Minister of National Health is going to have many things to answer for when he goes to the country again, and this will be one of them. The speech that he made to-night is going to be used against him, and I warn him that it will have a very grave effect on the people of British Columbia and, I have no doubt, on the people of his own constituency who know him so well. I think -the government would be well advised to accept the resolution of the hon. member for Battle River and try to do something with its health department.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, in spite of the implied threat in the words of the last speaker (Mr. McQuairrie) as to what will happen to anyone who speaks his mind on this subject, I think I had better discharge the duty which falls to a Minister of Finance in matters of this kind.
I have been impressed with the testimony which has come from all parts of the house to the splendid work now being carried on by the provinces and the municipalities in connection with public health. Every citizen of Canada feels proud of the tremendous advance which has been made in this country in public health matters during the last twenty years, and particularly during the last decade. That means, Mr. Speaker, that those public bodies which are at present constitutionally charged with responsibility for these matters are doing their duty, and doing it well.
The question before the house to-night is not whether such work shall be done; in fact we have eloquent testimony that it is being done to an increasing degree by those responsible for it. Rather the question is: Shall the Dominion step in, the constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, and enter upon Dominion expenditure in a field that hitherto has been provincial and municipal? Most of the arguments advanced for the Dominion entering this field of health units could be 
advanced with at least equal strength for the Dominion making payments towards hospitals in various parts of Canada. In fact the need for hospital accommodation in many parts of the Dominion is very much more acute in my opinion than the need for the organization of health units.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Impossible.


Charles Avery Dunning: "Impossible," some hon. members say. Well, perhaps my hon. friends are not so familiar with conditions on the frontier as I am, and I can assure them that from the point of view of the women in a pioneer settlement, a hospital to go to in case of need, is very much more to be desired than some organization for the prevent tion of communicable diseases or for the other classes of work which are done by health units. Of .course, health units such as described by the mover of this resolution (Mr. Spencer) and by the Minister of Health (Mr. King, Kootenay) are excellent things. But that is not the question. The question is: Shall this Dominion contribute towards such work, or shall it not? The resolution, it is true, asks that the government take this into consideration. That is a perfectly proper request; the government should take into consideration any such matter. But it is my duty to point out some obvious facte in the constitution.
Reference has been made by more than one speaker to the expenditures by the federal government on the health of animals. True, a great deal of money is spent by the Dominion government on the health of animals, that subject being one which comes within the definite purview of the government of Canada. But may I point out that the expenditure so made all down the years is a very definite contribution by the Dominion government to the health of the citizens of Canada? The major part of the expenditure of this Dominion on the health of animals is directly for the purpose of preventing the communication of disease from animals to human beings; that is largely what the money is being spent for.


Mr. CANTLEY:: If that be so, why not extend the expenditure further?


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly; that is the
point, just how far shall the Dominion go? There is no question regarding our constitutional duty to spend money with respect to matters connected with the health of animals. That is our field and the testimony of members speaking to-night is undoubtedly that Dominion governments from time to time have recognized their responsibility in that

National Health-Mr. Dunning
regard. May I point out something which occurred to me as I listened to the discussion this afternoon and to-night, namely, the change that, has apparently taken place in the attitude of the commons of Canada toward public expenditure; and it is true not only of the commons of Canada, but of the commons of Great Britain, I believe. The right of the commons to control expenditure was hard won, and perhaps for that very reason the premier function of the commons for many years became the controlling of the expenditures made by the crown,-limiting them, reducing them. In the last fifty years, however, a change has come over the scene, and both in Great Britain and in Canada the tendency of the commons has been to demand increased rather than restricted expenditure. In going over some material, not with respect to this situation especially but more particularly with regard to the resolutions now on the order paper which involve either an increased expenditure or a reduced revenue, I was interested in looking up the proceedings of the British House of Commons on questions of this kind, and I find that during the discussion in 1921, when a serious situation confronted the British House of Commons, Sir Austen Chamberlain-I quote now from the British Hansard-spoke as follows:
I speak now not as a prophet but as a recorder of the past. During the whole time in which I held office, and for as great a number of years preceding that, it has been the fact that parliament has not helped any government at any period within my recollection to reduce or restrict expenditure. I am not talking in a party sense, I am not taking in defence or excuse of any expenditure by the present government which may be criticized, whether rightly or wrongly, but I am stating what I believe is a fact, that the right honourable member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) would accept as historically true at any period within his knowledge. Hitherto, no matter what government has been in power, for the last thirty or forty, or perhaps even fifty years, pressure on the government of the day has always been, spend, spend. The cry of the House of Commons has been the cry of the horse leech's daughters, "Give, give", and resistance has had to be found in the department, in the treasury, or in the government.
I presume that in the British House of Commons motions of this kind have for their object the undoubted good of the people. Of course, much good can be done with considerable sums of money along very many lines, and particularly in matters of public health. I listened with great admiration to the speech of my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney) in this debate, and I have reason to appreciate, from my own experience in the provincial field, the tremendous value of the work which can be done in the matter of
public health. But to come back to what I started with, the question is not the value or otherwise of activities to promote public health. The question we are now asked to consider is whether the Dominion government should step out and become a financial partner with provinces and municipalities from coast to coast, apparently without any control of expenditure for what is admittedly a good purpose, but a purpose which up to the present time in the history of Canada, has been progressively well discharged by those provinces and municipalities. And so I say that from the point, of view of the financing of the country -I a,m speaking not of immediate financial requirements, but in the general sense-that while the government should take into consideration all such proposals as requested by the House of Commons, it is necessary that any government at any time should count the cost-not merely for to-day or to-morrow, but the commitment involved upon the whole country in loading upon the treasury a scheme of this kind; and should also take into consideration the fact that whether we like it or not we have a federal system of government which does definitely divide, or practically so, the responsibilities and obligations as between various taxing authorities. The question really comes to this, Mr. Speaker: this being admittedly a good purpose towards which to direct the expenditure of public money, what public body in the Dominion shall be charged with the responsibility of taxing the people to that end? Hitherto it has been regarded as good policy that the taxing authority in matters affecting public health shall be, in the main, the provinces, and the provinces in the exercise of their undoubted constitutional rights have transferred a part of their responsibility to municipalities; in many cases have arranged that municipalities shall be responsible for the maintenance of their local hospitals, aided in most instances by grants from the .provincial treasury on the basis of so much per patient per day. That responsibility, I say, has been well discharged, and the method of discharging it is being improved upon daily by the provinces and the municipalities.
The question for this house to consider is whether the Dominion should go further, bearing in mind, as I have already pointed out, that the major part of the expenditure on health of animals really has a bearing upon the health of the people themselves. Canada is now committed to a very extensive programme of scientific research. Will anyone say that the solution of problems in pure science will not in many respects contribute

National Health-Mr. Dunning
to the public health? It is generally recognized that the greatest advances have been made, as mentioned by my hon. friend from South Renfrew, by the work of research scientists, and this Dominion has embarked upon enlarged activities in that direction.
In conclusion, I simply desire to ask the sympathy of the house from the point of view of this Dominion as a taxing authority. It must tax to discharge the national obligations. No one ever proposed, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces should ibe asked to help the Dominion by way of contribution toward the expenditure involved in the carrying out of national undertakings. Someone pointed out during the course of the debate that the Dominion looks after those who are maimed and hurt in the carrying out of their national duty during the war, and argued from that that the Dominion should go further and deal with the whole civilian population as well. No Dominion government has yet asked the provinces to vote money in order to help the federal government carry out its national obligation toward those who suffered in their war service overseas, and such proposal would be regarded as absurd. Again the question arises, what taxing authority can properly levy the taxes necessary to discharge this obligation? Obviously it would be regarded as ridiculous for any other than the national taxing authority to levy taxes in order to meet war pension expenditures and the other commitments arising out of war. Down through the years the provincial and the municipal unit have been employed for many purposes in matters coming within their jurisdictions; and while the Dominion government will undoubtedly take into consideration the representations made by hon. members to-night on this subject, I think I have a right to place before the house the principles to which I have alluded.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have listened with much interest to the observations of the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) with respect to the discussion that has taken place. Touching the necessity for the establishment of health units, nothing need be said; I think the case is complete almost before it is stated. The question as to how the cost of maintaining such units is to be borne is another matter altogether. We can agree with much that the Minister of Finance has said. But let us look at this matter as practical persons. All taxes, whether raised by the Dominion, provincial or municipal authorities, are imposed upon the people of Canada, and the people of Canada pay the whole of that taxation.

It has been the custom of parliament from time immemorial-the very foundation of this parliament-to grant subsidies to the provinces. The basis of the federal union is the grant of subsidies by parliament to the provinces. Those subsidies were, in some instances based upon arbitrary considerations, in others on population. As time has gone on the provinces have received larger and larger grants from the federal exchequer. Why? Because the provinces are limited to direct forms of taxation, and the Dominion may raise taxes by any method or form of taxation. Therefore it follows that taxes can be raised much more readily by the Dominion taxing power, which has recourse to many sources of revenue, than by the provinces. The customs taxes in this country last year amounted to over $200,000,000. Those customs taxes were paid by all the people of Canada, and the Dominion government had the power to appropriate that sum of money to any purpose it thought to be of national interest. Part of that money was appropriated for the payment of subsidies to the provinces. Part of it was appropriated for other purposes. Part of it was appropriated to a federal commission with power to expend money for the beautifying of the city of Ottawa. They do not raise taxes, but they have the supreme control over the expenditures of the sum of money granted to them. Other money is given to the battlefields commission at Quebec; they spend it, but they do not raise it. There are other commissions which receive grants from this Dominion and expend them as they please, or in accordance with the terms of their creation, and they do not raise the money by taxation. That is clear. These are national undertakings. There are large sums of money appropriated to various purposes that are expended by the bodies into whose hands the moneys are entrusted without regard to the fact that they may not raise them because they have no taxing power.
Now, let us ask ourselves what this resolution means. What is meant is that there shall be an appropriation by this parliament of a sum of money to be placed in the hands of the provincial authorities for national health purposes. Remember, it is national health, not provincial health. Keep this in mind: the province deals with the municipal situation, with smallpox and matters of that kind; the province deals with epidemics in the communities and in some cases with hospitalization. There is, however, a field in which the province may not, it seems to me, properly function, and that is the creation of national wealth by ensuring the health of the Canadian people. Some one has said, " A nation's

National Health-Mr. Bennett
health is a nation's wealth." We as a parliament are concerned in the health of the Canadian people as a whole. To the extent to which men are able to labour, free from disease, we have added to the national wealth; to the extent which citizens by studying preventive medicine obtain knowledge, from clinics and other methods, for which the nation might well pay, we have added to the national wealth of Canada.
Did you ever consider the sums of money that are lost in this country through illness in a single year? Would any appropriation that might be made by this parliament to the provinces equal one-haLf the money represented by the loss to this country in one year through illness and inability of Canadians to work? It is an amazing figure, if you can rely upon figures as being in the least sense accurate. Parliament is charged with the responsibility for making laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada. There are certain specified heads under which we legislate. The provincial legislatures are charged with the responsibility for making laws within their own limited areas. There are specific heads under which they legislate, and health is, undoubtedly, one of them. But no province can undertake to deal with the subject of health as a problem concerning the nation as a whole, and one affecting the creation of greater national wealth in the truest and broadest sense I have mentioned, unless they have a grant in aid from this parliament.
Fifty years ago Disraeli in the English House of Commons moved an amendment to one of Gladstone's budgets asking that money be appropriated from the Imperial exchequer to assist in the defraying of costs of local organizations in Great Britain. One of the largest appropriations of modern times was made by the British ministry only a few short months ago for the purpose of relieving industry from the burden of local taxation. Here we are asked to do what? We are asked merely to make a grant in aid of the effort which the provinces will carry forward to ensure the health of the Canadian people as a whole, not provineially but nationally, not in a narrow and circumscribed area but throughout this Dominion as a whole, in order that the knowledge of preventive medicine may become universal and in order that the greatest means known to man to increase the national wealth, namely, measures to ensure the national health of our people, may become an accomplished fact.
I am in support of this resolution for that reason. I believe it is absurd to say that this parliament is limited in the scope of its
powers or the exercise of its jurisdiction. This parliament may appropriate money for any purpose, and the parliament of Canada that can appropriate money for sufferers in the East or the West Indies or continental Europe when a great catastrophe happens surely can make an appropriation in aid of the provincial effort to ensure the health of the Canadian people. I say it is wrong for any Prime Minister to say it is a vicious principle that we should grant money to provinces because they do not raise it by taxation. It is no more a vicious principle to grant money to a province in order to ensure the health of the Canadian people, surely, than to grant money to a federal commission for the beautification of this city of Ottawa. Surely it cannot be so. Let us talk with some regard to reasonableness when we discuss the situation. I am fairly familiar with the commission which has been created for that purpose; I am acquainted with the grants which have been made and with other matters concerning it, but the fact is that this parliament makes grants to such commissions, and you cannot limit it by saying "this is within the legislative power of the province and this within the legislative power of the Dominion." We are dealing with a national problem, and the only way we can successfully deal with it is by making grants from the federal exchequer, in which is placed the money raised by different forms of taxation. We must make these grants to the provinces in order to enable them to carry on a work which otherwise they cannot properly undertake.
May I say this further word: During the last few years I have observed a constant and steady drying up of the sources of private benefaction. In the days of the war we all gave very freely, and then the provinces undertook larger responsibilities with respect to health. I recall that a Red Cross organization with which I was concerned maintained a hospital at Pouce Coupe, away in the frontier between British Columbia and Alberta. Today in Calgary we are maintaining, through the 'junior Red Cross, a hospital for crippled children, and the children in the schools are being taught the benefit of making contributions in aid of those weaker and less able to care for themselves. Every year as we pass the subscription list in an endeavour to secure funds we find that the people are being convinced that governments are undertaking the responsibility, with money obtained by taxation and which was formerly donated by private individuals. They will not pay twice; they will not be taxed on the one hand and give with the other. There is, I repeat, a constant drying up of the sources of revenue

National Health-Mr. Lapointe
from private benefactions and gifts, but there is no lessening of taxation. This country is not lessening taxation in volume. The question is what is to be done with the money, and I put it to the house and the country whether or not any better use could be made of a few million dollars than to grant to the provinces sufficient funds to enable them to maintain health units from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The good will be reflected within a reasonable time. It has been reflected in England within the last ten years, and the statistics of one of the greatest insurance companies in the world indicate that by .pursuing these methods the span of human life has been extended nine years. That has been the result of twenty-five years experience. The Life Extension Institute, of which the former Chief Justice of the United States was chairman, provides for the examination every year of all who hold life insurance policies. This examination is given without cost and is for the purpose of extending the span of human life. Prevention is better than cure. Preventive medicine is the great study of to-day. I observe that a leading citizen of Great Britain, in delivering at the university of 'Leeds not long since an address upon preventive medicine, pointed out in language much better than I can employ the benefits to be derived from following such a course. Let us approach this .problem not as a problem of jurisdiction, not as a problem as to whether or not under the British North America Act it is a matter of provincial responsibility; let us look upon it as a national problem. This parliament has the power to appropriate any part of the national revenue for any purpose for the interest of Canada as a whole. Make the appropriation not for provincial purposes, but to the provinces to carry forward a great national undertaking- the ensuring of the health and thereby the happiness and prosperity of the Canadian people.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I desire at the outset
to say that I am going to vote in favour of this resolution, which merely asks that the government should take into consideration the advisability of making grants to the provinces equal to one-third the cost of establishing, and to cover permanently such full-time health units as may be organized.. However, I agree with the bon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MiacLaren) that the first step should co.me from the provinces, and when that step is made then the request should be considered. My object in rising is to state that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. 
Bennett) is not altogether fair to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) when he states that the power which raises taxation should be the one to spend the money raised by that means. He mentioned the federal district commission and the national battlefields commission as instances where federal money is spent by way of grants. Surely he knows that those two commissions are federal commissions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely.


Ernest Lapointe: They are appointed by
federal parliament and they are under the control of a responsible minister of the crown. Does the same thing apply in matters of health? When this parliament enacted the act to create the Department off Health, it specified by section 7:
Nothing in this act or in any regulations made hereunder shall authorize the minister or any officer of the department to exercise any jurisdiction or control over any provincial or municipal board of health or other health authority operating under the laws of any province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not touch upon it.


Ernest Lapointe: Parliament knew that
there was a limitation of constitutional jurisdiction in matters of health as between the Dominion parliament and the provinces, and the whole act is framed with that condition in view. The act clearly states that nothing therein shall invade upon the provincial area as far as matters of health are concerned. It is a federal act and in no way are we authorized to trespass upon provincial control.
My hon.. friend is quite right in stating that the provinces are limited to direct taxation. They have been compelled to ask for increases in their subsidies, which they received, and further increases may be made; but a far better principle is that we should give subsidies to the provinces without earmarking them for any special purposes. The provinces are jealous of their autonomy, and I do not think that it is in the provincial interests that we should give them money for a certain purpose and exercise control which might limit their jurisdiction. The principle of making grants and earmarking them for special purposes provincial in scope is not a good principle and I for one would rather increase the subsidies to the provinces and leave them absolutely free to act within their jurisdiction.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that I agree with the remarks and am very much in sympathy with the sentiments of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). I am jealous for

National Health-Mr. Young (Saskatoon)
the rights of the provinces and I do not believe in mixing these things up. The provinces, being autonomous, should conduct their own affairs. They are responsible for their own citizens and they should have complete freedom within their own boundaries. I have often thought that the Dominion parliament should, be in a sense, a confederation; that is, it should be exactly what the provinces make it. Under present conditions and circumstances, under the false fiscal policy which we are pursuing to-day, the provinces have reached the stage where they cannot meet their indebtedness; they cannot raise by taxation sufficient money to meet their obligations. As time has gone on it has become more and more necessary for the Dominion government to give assistance to the provinces for different purposes; I have in mind the road policy and the farm loan scheme. These things were brought into being by this parliament because the provinces themselves could not meet the needs of agriculture. To help the provinces as regards health is another matter of the same kind. In Saskatchewan to-day we are unable to meet our obligations regarding farm loans. It has become necessary for the government, under the present false fiscal policy, to subscribe more and more liberally as time goes on to the schemes of the provinces themselves. The little group in this corner, not so very long ago, had to stand the insult from an hon. member from Toronto who said that we were beating the income tax collector, and that Toronto itself paid thirty per cent of the income tax of the whole Dominion. That very statement is in itself a charge that the provinces are unable to meet their obligations, because the money has been concentrated in the hands of a few.
Health is one of the most important matters a province has to deal with, and when it cannot meet its obligations to its citizens, where shall it look but to where its taxes go? The Minister of Finance said that the provinces do not subscribe to the schemes of the Dominion for pensions and so on, but every individual is being taxed for that purpose. We are spending many millions of dollars on the beautification of this city. I want to ask whether the beautification of Ottawa, upon which these millions are being spent, is of more importance than the health of our people. The members from the maritime provinces very well know that they have been unable to carry on, and the western provinces to-day are as much in need of a Duncan commission as the maritime provinces ever were, simply on account of the concentration of wealth through a false fiscal policy
adopted by this parliament. The matter of looking after the health of our people is only one item among many. We are getting further every year along this wrong road of a wrong fiscal policy, and it is becoming more and more imperative that the Dominion government return some of its money to the provinces to look after the health and general welfare of the people.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: It is not necessary for me to say
that I regard the health of the people of Canada as one of the most important matters, if not the most important, to which we can give attention. In fact it is not necessary to take up the time of the house in discussing the question. I say at once that I regard the health of the people of Canada as of paramount importance. I might also say that I regard the education of the people of this country as a matter of very great importance. I might go on to say that I regard good roads throughout Canada as of very great importance. I might also say that I regard having churches in every part of the country ns of great importance. Then I might ask the question: Since someone has to pay, who are the people who should pay for these various items? We are sitting here as members from constituencies, but we represent the whole of Canada. The peculiar thing about this resolution is that it comes from a member of the House of Commons. It seems to me that if the provinces feel that they are unable to deal with this vital problem, this is a resolution which might very properly be introduced by a member of any provincial legislature. Then, if all the legislatures throughout Canada were of a common mind in the conclusion that they could not properly discharge the function of adequately looking after the health of the people, they might ask the parliament of Canada to assist them in the discharge of that duty. But it does not seem to come in that particular way, and I therefore suggest that before parliament should feel obligated to deal with a matter of this kind, the least we .could expeict would be that the provinces themselves would make this request.
May I ask this question? If to-night, instead of the word "health," we substitute the word "education," and if the parliament of Canada made large grants to the provinces for education, at the same time would it not be fair to say that we would have some interest in the policy of education in each province? I would like to ask the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) whether his friends in Saskatchewan at this moment would like us to vote
23S
National Health-Mr. Esling

in the parliament of Canada money for educational purposes, and I would like to ask him at the same time whether he thinks his friends in, Saskatchewan would like this parliament to dictate the policy of education in the legislature of Saskatchewan. Every province in Canada is so jealous of its rights in that regard that it would have something to say in the matter. My view is that before giving money through the federal parliament for a matter of this kind we should at least expect the various provinces to make a request for it.
I am not sure that we could not very properly grant money for the purpose stated in the resolution. I feel so strongly on the health question that I would like to say this: if the provinces, on account of their more limited taxing powers, find themselves unable to discharge properly and adequately the function which any health department should discharge, I would be in favour of the federal parliament granting the money. But I cannot help feeling that the first request should come not from a member of the federal house but from the provincial legislatures themselves.


Mr. W. K. ESLING (West Kootenay):: In so far as this resolution applies to British Columbia, may I state that we have local health units there, and the various institutes and other bodies which have made a request for a grant have asked simply that such grant be made as a substitute for the grant that now comes from the Rockefeller Foundation? In British Columbia the local units are provided for with one-half contribution from the local district, one-quarter from the province, and one-quarter from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller grant runs temporarily for a period of three years, and it is to make good that grant after its expiration that the various bodies in British Columbia ask for federal assistance.
Communities which are near the larger centres of population are better able to take care of themselves, but if some of the members who are not familiar with the remote districts could understand the impossibility of furnishing medical assistance to families living away up in such far-off districts that it takes a doctor a week to get in and out, they would better appreciate the need of. a federal grant in this direction. As I say, we are able to take care of those units in the centres of population, but those in the more remote districts are practically without any medical attention, and I think the people of the institutes in British Columbia are fully

justified in asking the federal government to contribute merely that portion of the expense which is now covered by the Rockefeller grant, or, in other words, one-quarter of the existing expenses.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: I think that to-day's discussion covering one point and another has afforded a splendid exemplification of the purpose and function of private members' day, giving as it does an opportunity to the various private members of the house to bring forward their suggestions and express their opinions on many important matters without reference to party lines or political feelings. I think too, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps no more important subject could1 have occupied the attention of the private members to-day than this very subject of national health. I think we are to 'be .congratulated1 upon the many expressions of opinion and the unanimity of feeling exhibited throughout this house on this question. There were, however, two or three points that occurred to me as the debate proceeded to which I should like to refer for a moment.
In the first place I would refer to the suggestion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) 'as to the provincial character of such undertakings as those 'bearing upon the subject matters of the resolution. To my mind we must consider the question very much as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has considered it, from the point of view that Whatever we do, whatever public expenditures are made, under whatever public authority, the same people have to pay the taxes. We should therefore consider under what authority or under what combination of authorities this work can be most efficiently and most thoroughly done. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that the national government should taike some part in this work, for as I see it, just as no small community can successfully take care of the health of the people -because, passing as they do from one community to another, it is impossible for the small 'Community adequately to protect them -thus making it necessary for the province to step in and coordinate, and expand that work, enlarging the area within which the control is exercised; so, following exactly the same argument, must the federal government step in if the work is to be done thoroughly and carried on beyond the bounds of the province. It requires coordination throughout the whole Dominion. We know perfectly well that our own citizens and people entering Canada from other countries pass from one community to another and from one province

National Health-Mr. Speakman
to another carrying with them the seeds of infection and disease; in order therefore to ensure the health both of those who travel and of those who stay at home it is necessary that all should come under some system of supervision. It makes no difference in the long run as to the amount of money the people must pay-we are all agreed on that- and I believe that the work can be most effectively done by the federal government itself, expanding and coordinating it from coast to coast.
There is another point which has been mentioned and which I think will bear repetition, namely the intimate connection which must exist .between any policy of immigration and the health of the nation. That immigration policy, being purely under the direction of the federal government, to my mind carries with it the necessity of life preservation. Immigrants must be followed wherever they go; medical attention and medical examination must 'be available to them wherever they may be, they must feel that .careful preventive measures are accompanying them. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the time will come, and it is approaching, when all this work will be done through the cooperation of all the different public bodies that are equally interested in it.
There is one other thought that passed through my .mind as the debate continued. It was stated by the Minister of Finance that it was purely a question as to the taxing body which should provide the .funds; that it was not a question of work crying out to be done and .being neglected; that the work was being well done by the provinces and municipalities. So far as I have seen the work has been done to the extent that the provinces and the municipalities have 'been able to carry it on, but their efforts have 'been strictly limited by their inability to finance these enterprises to the extent that they would like. The same work would ibe better done and would be carried further, and the health of the people would be more adequately safeguarded, if this motion were not only given consideration, as I know it will be, but if its principle were ultimately accepted by this parliament and if the terms laid down by the motion were put into effect.


John Vallance: This is a question, Mr. Speaker, that is of vital importance to all portions of Canada. The discussion, if it has done nothing else, has drawn the attention of all Canada to the condition that now exists. The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of thi6 house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of making grants to the provinces equal to one-third the cost of establishing, and to cover permanently such full time health units as may be organized.
The responsibility of the different governments has been repeatedly- pointed out in this debate. For six or seven years I was very closely identified in the rural parts of Canada with a union municipal hospital, as chairman, of the management committee. The hospital was entirely under the jurisdiction of the municipal unit, and it worked very efficiently. I believe that more money should be spent on health, but I am inclined to agree' with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), that if the various provincial governments have not at their command sufficient moneys for the purpose larger grants might be made to the provinces to further this work.
There is another point. I think it is always a sound principle that the taxes should be spent by the body that has the responsibility of collecting them. If any group or any individual has the responsibility both of collecting and of spending money, I believe that expenditures will .be made more judiciously-. I realize that the work of the municipalities and of the provinces may be limited by the state of their finances, but I think that difficulty could be overcome if the provinces, as suggested by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) should appeal for aid to the -federal government, and if this suggestion had come from them I think every member of this house would have been prepared to support the resolution. For my .part, while I am in sympathy with the object of the resolution, I think the suggestion has not come, as it should have come, from the provinces, and like the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice, until the provinces do suggest that we make larger grants to them, I do not feel that I can support the resolution.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman's
reply will of course close the debate.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I feel very well repaid Mr. Speaker, for introducing this resolution. We have had an excellent debate, and nearly twice as many members have taken part in it as spoke on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. What is more, on this subject they have all been in agreement as to the importance of the work to be done; the only difference was in the view held on the
National Health-Mr. Spencer

government side as to whether the expenditure should be made out of the federal treasury, and how it should be made.
It is not necessary for me to go over the speeches that have been made except to touch on one or two points, particularly those made by the Minister of Health (Mr. King, Kootenay). Onie of his statements should really disarm three or four members on his own side; he said that two provincial governments had already approached him, as Minister of Health, to help in this matter. That, I think, will answer the objections of the hon. member who last spoke (Mr. Vallance), the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young). The Minister of Health stated that owing to the fact that the United States had gone so very largely into this system of organization for the care of public health they had made it possible to prevent great epidemics. One can easily see how that would result. He said this resolution was the natural demand of following the work achieved on the other side of the line, and that it should be dealt with by our public men. I am very glad to get his admission. However, he did what I was afraid he would do; he brought the old British North America Act to his defence and got behind it, saying that it would not allow the federal authorities to do this. I may refer the house to fourteen items in the current estimates running from $5,000 to $100,000 and representing grants by the government of Canada to this, that and the other thing. If the British North America Act does not prevent them from giving these grants, I am sure my suggestion would be in order.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Can you give us the items?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I will give the house a few-the Boy Scouts; the care of venereal disease; the National Institute for the Blind; the Montreal Institute for the Blind; the Canadian Medical Association in connection with the visit of the British Medical Association, and so forth. I do not know that those expenditures can be justified under the British North America Act.


John Vallance: The hon. member will notice that those expenditures are all for health purposes.


Henry Elvins Spencer: But the minister objected that he could not contribute to the establishment of these health units under the British North America Act. Apparently he can make contributions of a similar nature when he wants to.


Charles Avery Dunning: When my hon. friend said the minister objected, I hope he did not mean me.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I was referring to the
Minister of Health. The member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) referred to the way this system of organization would work in with the system we have, particularly in Alberta, of municipal hospitals. The member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) referred to the wonderful work such an organization could do in the prevention of goitre so prevalent in the district to which she referred.
In reply to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), I would say that he should look back to the program of his party made in 1919 as cited by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead). At that time the Liberal party stood foursquare for tihe very work I am suggesting now, blaming the government of the day for not doing it, and saying they would understake the work if they got into power. If promises are of any value, then I say let us see them carried out.
I think if a whole lot of money was cut out from the immigration estimates and placed in aid of the conservation of public health across this Dominion, such an expenditure would be an investment, and a very good investment indeed. That is all I ask for in this resolution. I do not ask for an unremunerative expenditure, I ask for an investment, and it would be one of the very best investments Canada ever made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested
to me fchait we -should not take up another resolution to-night, and therefore I desire to move the adjournment olf the house; but before doing so, I should like, with the consent of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) to ask that the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. King, Kootenay) be allowed to move the notice of motion standing in his name for the appointment of a committee dealing with pensions and returned soldier problems.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to return to the order for motions?
Motion agreed to and the house reverted to the order for motions.



PENSIONS AMD SOLDIERS' PROBLEMS


James Horace King: That all matters connected with pensions and returned soldiers' problems be referred to a special committee consisting of Messrs. Adshead, Arthurs, Black (Yukon), Clark, Fiset, Gershaw, Hepburn, Ilsley, Manion, McGibbon McIntosh, MioPherson, McLean (Melfort), Power. Ross (Kingston), Sanderson,, Speakman and Thorson, with power to call for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses under oath; and that special order 65 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
Tuesday, March 4, 1930