Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to interject a word into the debate, if I may be permitted to do so, in order to ascertain from you just what interpretation we must place upon the rulings which have been made with reference to speeches delivered during the budget debate. I simply wish to call your attention to an apparent anomaly which seems to exist. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken discussed the affairs of the country generally, as he had a perfect right to do and for which I have no quarrel with him. However, I gather from your decision that having made this speech on the subamendment, as soon as that subamendment is voted down or otherwise dealt with, the hon. gentleman may rise again and discuss in a general way the government of the country. Then, the amendment having been disposed of, on the main motion he may make a similar speech, so we have this situation: A man who speaks towards the close of the debate on the subamendment may make three general speeches, whereas a man who speaks on the main motion at the beginning of the debate may speak only once. I must confess that I am somewhat mystified as to the course of jurisprudence in this matter, and for my own satisfaction and information and for the information of the members generally, I think it would be well if a definite rule were laid down as to just how many general speeches may be made during the budget debate.

My interpretation of your ruling may not be correct, sir, but I have discussed this matter with a number of my colleagues and they have come to the same conclusion. It would appear to me, therefore, that if we are to follow this practice there will be nothing to prevent any man who so desires from speaking for not 40 minutes but 120 minutes, and so the rule which we put into force some two years ago after so much study will be set at naught. For that reason I rise and interrupt the course of the debate, and while I do not expect you, Mr. Speaker, to give an answer immediately, I do urge that you and those who have to do with the conduct of this house endeavour to straighten out the matter so that it will be quite clear to all members of the house.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Last year I gave a ruling on that point, and that ruling was sustained by the house. I have consulted the highest authority in the realm, the Clerk of the English House of Commons, and he agrees with the ruling I gave. This evening I directed the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) to speak on the subject matter of the subamendment, because he had already spoken on the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie).

It is not so difficult to understand the ruling. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken made general reference to the policies of the government; he indulged in general criticism, and if he so wishes he is entitled to speak at another time on the amendtnent, but then he will have to speak directly to the amendment.

Mr. POWER:

When the hon. member

comes to speak on the main motion I have not the least doubt but that he will be able to discuss the affairs of the country generally, because if there is one thing which we do understand in the workings of our constitution it is that when the budget is brought down every member of parliament has a right to discuss all subjects which may be properly laid before parliament. So on two occasions at least the hon. gentleman would have the right to speak generally. I am not quarrelling with your decision, Mr. Speaker; on the contrary I am rather inclined to agree with it, but I wish to point out that if we are prepared to follow that practice we will set at naught the rule which we laid down two years ago that no member should speak more than forty minutes on one subject. I want to point out that the situation should be so cleared up that it may be understood perfectly by the members of the house that one speech on the budget, of whatever length, should be sufficient for any member.

The Budget-Mr. Johnstone

Mr. L. W. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria):

Mr. Speaker, before the

debate is closed I would like to make a few remarks, although at this late date, after the great- flow of oratory which has issued from the lips of the hon. gentlemen who have taken part in the discussion, there is not very much left for me to say. Especially is that the case since the budget itself contains so little for us to consider.

While t'he budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) contains a very glowing picture of Canada's prosperity as evidenced by the financial statement, and while it may give a large portion of Canada a feeling of satisfaction, I can assure the minister that it does not touch a responsive chord in the hearts of the people of the maritimes. They, as usual, have been practically ignored. The minister holds out no hope for the steel and coal industries, and it must seem very strange to the people of Canada, as I know it does to the people of the maritimes, that in the budget no mention is made of those two great industries.

In addition to this, not a word is said as to what the government will do with respect to the Duncan report. From the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) down the members of the government know very well that the Duncan report found in favour of the maritimes on some thirty counts, and this report was handed to the government in September of 1926. As a result, the absolutely unjust freight rates which then existed have been reduced and the government has carried out the recommendation of the commission in giving Nova Scotia a special annual subsidy of $875,000, to be paid until such time as the proper -annual amount shall be arrived at. So far as I know, no effort has been made to arrive at that final sum which will be paid, not only to Nova Scotia, but to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. There does not seem to be any intention on the part of the government to do a single thing to put the Duncan report into effect in its entirety. That is a gross omission on the part of the Minister of Finance and it cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed.

It is a well known fact that the people of the maritimes have less of this world's wealth than the people in other parts of the Dominion. Nova Scotia was probably the most prosperous of the four provinces which originally entered into confederation. Their shipping brought them in great wealth. At that time the shipping tonnage in Nova Scotia was greater per capita than that of

any other country in the world. In every village where shipbuilding was carried on beautiful homes were to be found, and other evidences of luxury were to be seen. The sea brought them wealth from every portion of the world. But those days are long .past. Since 1867 conditions have changed entirely, and the maritimes have been-steadily losing their population. Prince Edward Island has a smaller population to-day than in 1871, the date of the first census. In 1921 the population was over 20,000 less than in 1881. Since 1871 the population of the province of Nova Scotia has increased 35 per cent; in New Brunswick there has been an increase of 36 per cent, while Quebec has increased 100 per cent and Ontario 81 per cent. During the same period the population of Manitoba increased from 25,000 to 610,000, and that of British Columbia increased from 36,000 to 524,000. In 1901. Saskatchewan had -a population of 91,279, which had grown to 757,510 in 1921, and the population of Alberta increased from 73,022 to 588,454. These figures show conclusively the situation in the maritimes as regards the relative growth of Canada. The average per capita wealth of the three maritime provinces is $1,443, while the average per capita wealth of the three prairie provinces is $3,259, or more than double. The figures for 1927 make the comparison between the maritimes and the Canadian west still worse.

In spite of these conditions the budget has nothing to say regarding the situation in the provinces which have suffered so much as a result of the union. This suffering is due to the fact that the contract made at that time has not been carried out. How can the government of this Dominion expect a virile people, nearly all of Anglo-Saxon and French-Canadian blood, to rest content under a treatment which is discriminating against them and reducing them to poverty? Justice has been refused in every direction. The budget holds out no hope for relief or fair dealing. Those who have will hold, and those who have not, that which they have shall be taken from them. Is this a treatment which a proud and patriotic people is expected to receive and submit to without protest? Let me assure this government that it is making a great mistake. The maritimes have no intention of being the outcast portion of the Dominion, nor will they submit forever to injustice.

The confederation agreement entered into in 1864, and later made effective by an imperial act, came into force on July 1, 1867.

The Budget-Mr. Johnstone

in 1925. We expect the Duncan report to be implemented in full. We expect that the maritimes will be put upon a fair and equitable basis with the rest of Canada. That is all we ask, and less than that we shall not be willing to accept. That we demand and we want redress without delay. Probably our people are to blame for their negligence in not pressing their demands far more actiyely than they have done, but the government may rest assured that the maritimes are awake to-day; that they intend to secure these things that are rightfully theirs; that they will never be satisfied until they achieve these results and, furthermore, that they do not intend to wait another sixty 3'ears before justice is meted out to them.

Before I close I wish to summarize some of our demands. Mj' desire is not to criticise every little matter with which I do not agree in the budget speech. I wish, however, to emphasize those things in which our provinces are vitally interested. You have been told, Mr. Speaker, how the population has decreased, and that the per capita wealth of our people is much less than one-half of that of all the west of Canada and just one-third that of Saskatchewan. Those two facte alone should be enough to warrant the government in having something important to state as to their policy towards the maritimes.

The terms made in 1867 regarding transportation have been deliberately and intentionally violated for half a century. If our provinces, and especially Nova Scotia, were to have their claims adjusted from the time they came into confederation, as has been promised Manitoba, it would take a large slice of the national revenue to compensate them for their tremendous losses. Our greatest loss, however, is in the loss of our native-born population. Hon. gentlemen know how well the natives of these provinces have done when they have gone afield. Members from our prairie provinces, I feel sure, will endorse my statement that the maritimers uTho have gone to the west are a very valuable factor in their population. It is acknowledged that they have done a great deal toward the upbuilding of the United States.

Look at the port of Halifax. It was expressly stated by Sir John A. Macdonald that that city should be one of the great emporiums of the world. Sir George-Etienne Cartier went further and stated that the traffic between Halifax and Liverpool would look like a ferry across the Atlantic once the traffic of Canada was directed through the port of Halifax. Until the last two years, however, one-half the time our harbour was almost without a sail or a smokestack. The

fact that this wonderful natural port, which requires so little to make it the greatest port in the world, has been neglected now for over fifty years, is one of the things that anger the citizens of Nova Scotia. They know they were deceived. The promises made respecting this development were positive and definite. It was agreed that the trade developing in Canada, passing across the Atlantic during the winter period, must come through Halifax or St. John. That was one of the conditions of confederation.

The conditions of the coal trade need not be referred to. There again definite promises were made which, if carried into effect, would have made the mines of Cape Breton a hive of industry. More American coal is used in Ontario twice over than is produced in Nova Scotia. This, we are told, is a matter of freight rates. The freight rates can be so adjusted that business can be done. This trade was promised, but the steel industry is languishing because it cannot get fair treatment at the hands of parliament.

When we look, Mr. Speaker, at our ruined industries, our neglected ports, our half-developed coal fields, we see a monument to the injustice of the federal government. We see the trade of Canada steadily directed towards the United States. We see our resources gradually falling into their hands. A change must be made, and a change will be made I hope in the very near future. Our natural resources and our raw materials must be kept at home for our own people to develop, and I am sure that if that were done, we would have our young men and women, who are educated by the Canadian ratepayers, staying at home and building up their own country, instead of. as they are doing now, helping to build up a foreign country. So I say Mr. Speaker, let everyone in this fair country of ours have for his motto, "Canada for Canadians."

Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :

I would be very glad indeed, Mr. Speaker, to support the subamendment but for two or three things. The subamendment in principle would perhaps be acceptable to me if it were slightly amended. It now reads as follows:

That the amendment be amended by striking out all the words after "house" and substituting therefor the following:

"urges upon the government the consideration of an immediate and substantial increase of the British preference as a step towards freer trade relations between Canada and other nations."

I presume that the object of the mover and the seconder of this subamendment is to help the people in the prairie provinces, and

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie

I am quite agreeable to that. We in British Columbia are very much interested in the welfare of the prairie provinces. When they have good crops and get good prices for them, we directly reap the benefit of that in British Columbia. The prosperity of British Columbia is very much tied up with the prosperity of the prairies. We are their Pacific seaport. We get many of their people when they have made enough money to retire or desire a change of climate, and we are very glad to have them. We therefore certainly do not wish to do anything that would hurt the people of the prairie provinces.

It seems to me that the wording of the subamendment might be changed a little. In the first place, it proposes that all the material words in the amendment be stricken out. That, of course, is something to which I cannot agree because the amendment sets out the policy of our party, and I think all the members of the Conservative party in this house are solidly behind the amendment. We therefore could not consistently vote for a subamendment which strikes out all the words of our own amendment. If instead of striking out the words of our amendment, the subamendment had been added to the amendment, then I think I could have voted for it except for one reason.

I am quite in favour of increasing our trade with the other nations of the empire. I think we do not- do enough business now within our own family, as it were, in this great empire of ours. I think that Canada could afford to do more business with our sister nations of the empire, could afford to buy more goods from them, and to sell more goods to them. We all know what has been accomplished by the empire marketing board, which is being financed very largely by the people of the old country. As a result of the work which they have already done, the trade between the dominions and the mother country within the past three years has been very largely increased, and particularly is that true of the mother country, because year by year in the last three years she has purchased very greatly increasing quantities of the products of the dominions of the empire. I would be very glad indeed to see any resolution passed which would tend toward increasing Canada's trade with the empire, and I would therefore suggest adding to the words of the subamendment, after "as a step towards freer trade relations between Canada and other nations" the words "of the British Empire." If we had the amendment to the amendment in that shape, I think I could support it. As a matter of fact, I might go so far as to say that personally, and speaking only for myself I would

like to see some form of reciprocity among the countries within the empire if it could be worked out. I think it would be a good thing all round; the empire would be self-contained in every way, and we here in Canada would not have to 'be at all concerned with any tariff changes that might be made by the United States or any other country. At the present time, of course, we are looking with some degree of concern towards certain tariff changes which might be made in the United States. That is their business, and we have no right to criticize any changes they may make, but similarly we have a right to look after ourselves.

I notice also that Japan only recently has increased her tariff, and some of those tariff changes are aimed directly at business which is at present being done by Canada with Japan and by the United States with Japan. I am referring particularly to the lumber industry. The Japanese representatives have said that the reason for making these tariff changes is to assist the lumber industry of Japan, that there is no attempt on their part to attack any of the other nations or to injure them in any way, but that they are making these changes in a spirit of self-preservation, to build up their own timber industry again. We cannot object to that.

I think that the great majority of the people of British Columbia, irrespective of their political leanings, are in favour of the amendment which has been moved in this debate. Someone has said that the tariff is a matter of geography. That may be so. So far as British Columbia is concerned I have only to paint out that in the last Dominion election the people of that province sent to this house twelve members of the Conservative party as against one member of the government party, and that one member happened to be a minister of the crown, Which, of course, gave him a little higher standing.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Of course they have seen their mistake since.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

They have been very sorry for it.

Mr. McQUARRIE:

I may say that at the next general election that lonely Liberal representative will be missing, for he had a very narrow majority at the last election. There must be some reason for this practically unanimous Conservative representation, because it cannot be supposed that the people of British Columbia are not capable of intelligently judging the issues presented to them in the election campaigns. I will tell you the reason-the tariff. British Columbia

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie

is in favour of a fair measure of protection for its agriculturists and industrialists. I represent about 65,000 people. They are industrial and agricultural. I presume that I have more farmers in my constituency than are represented by any other member from British Columbia. Of course my constituency is one of tlhe best in the province. I have been sent back here four times with large majorities. At the last election I got over a thousand votes more than in the previous election. In every campaign I have preached more than anything else protection for our farms and our industries. And that is what the people out there want. My fanning community borders on the United States. We have a main, paved highway running down into the United States, and our farmers every day see coming over that highway large truck loads of the products of the farms south of the boundary line. So they know how their market is being interfered with.

Now, you may turn up statistics and tell me: Yes, but we get a comparatively small amount of those products from the United States. But please remember that just across the line from us they have a very great advantage climatically; they are two or three weeks ahead of us. Consequently they can bring in their products that much ahead of our products and get the cream of our market. That is occurring every year. Our farmers know it, and they do not like it. We as their representatives have been urging on the government for many years the necessity of at least equalizing our tariff with that of the United States. Nearly everything that is produced in British Columbia is unfairly treated by the United States tariff. I do not propose to go over the whole list, although I have it before me and if desired shall be happy to put it. on Hansard. Let me refer particularly to some of the chief products of the farm. For instance, butter: the Canadian tariff is four cents a pound, the United States tariff, twelve cents a pound. Eggs: the Canadian tariff is three cents a dozen; United States tariff, eight cents a dozen. Hay: the Canadian tariff is two dollars per ton of 2.000 pounds; the United States tariff, four dollars a ten of 2,240 pounds. What does this mean? That it pays the Americans to Bend their products into the British Columbia markets and pay only a veiy small duty; whereas if our farmers desire to get into the Seattle market, for instance, the tariff practically debars them.

Many times I have had occasion to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) to these items. It is said

"he knows his onions, and is very familiar

with other varieties of vegetables" but he does not seem to recognize the necessity of giving the people of Canada a fair deal. He simply throws up his hands and says, Oh, we cannot do anything at the present time. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) is kinder to us, and when he was out in British Columbia the last time he told the people that so far as he was concerned he would like to see the tariff on those items equalized. Well, if something of the kind is not done the people of British Columbia will not send a single Liberal to represent them in this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal about the prosperity of the Dominion. I am not going to say that conditions are not prosperous in British Columbia. But in some lines we are not doing as well as we1 might. For example, we are producing a lot of eggs. My experience has been that the poultrymen of British Columbia are not making even a reasonable living from their poultry. We have some very large poultry farms m the province. Recently the poultry farmers formed a .pool, and I notice that in a press report of a meeting held at New Westminster the other day those present owned 771,000 hens. It must be remembered that there were no more Conservatives at the meeting than there were Liberals, but they passed a unanimous resolution demanding that the tariff on eggs be equalized. As to beef cattle, our herds have been decreasing from time to time until now we do not produce as many beef cattle as we did a few years ago. The reason is lack of proper protection. I could go over the list with practically the same result. I do not think the protection we want is going to hurt the farmers on the prairies. I think gradually they will come to see that the policy of the Conservative party is not only the best for Canada as a whole but the best for themselves. I am confident that as the years go by we shall find that the prairie farmer wants protection just as much as the farmer in British Columbia, that is, when he goes in more for mixed farming. He is doing that already and he is noticing that he needs protection. I might point out another thing. When any of these prairie farmers remove to British Columbia they immediately change their ideas about the tariff and come out and support the Conservative party; a good many of them have done that for me in the elections in which I have been a candidate. As I said before, we should not spend as much money in the United States as we do. I am not going into the figures; they have been repeated here time after time. But the fact remains that we buy a great deal more from the United States than they buy from

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie

us, and the proportion seems to be increasing rather than decreasing. The people of the United States are business people, and they would take no exception to our putting the tariff of this country on such a basis as we might consider necessary to protect the Canadian people. As a matter of fact, I think they rather make fun of us for the weak-kneed stand we are taking at the present time. I have spoken to several former residents of the United States and they complain that the tariff of Canada has not been rectified.

I have mentioned a few items. I have another one in connection with dressed Iamb. This is a resolution from the British Columbia Wool Growers' Association. That is not a Conservative organization, but at its annual meeting held on March 6 of this year it passed the following resolution:

Be it resolved that the Canada Dumping Act, customs regulations thereunder, and other related acts if any which in their present form cannot be invoked to bring relief in this and other similar situations confronting the producers of agricultural products in British Columbia be so amended, at the earliest possible moment, in order that they may be applied whenever conditions warrant it. It is urgently suggested that when amendments are enacted they provide for the application of duties on an ad valorem basis.

In British Columbia we are very much interested in mines. I am afraid there has been perhaps too much speculation in mining stocks lately, and in that connection I think possibly the Department of Mines might do something more than it has been doing. I quite appreciate the work that has been done. I appreciate also the fact that the Deputy Minister of Mines is a very capable official, and other officials of the department are doing their best. But it is necessary for the government first to adopt a policy. There are too many wildcats in this country, and so far as I can see the government is doing nothing to discourage people from putting their money into wildcat propositions. I think it is quite necessary that mining stock should be sold on the markets of this country, as otherwise we should not be able to get the money requisite for the developing of the mines of Canada. At the same time, I do not think it is right that stocks and shares should be sold when they have nothing behind them. I do not think it should be possible for any company to put on the market stock behind which there is only a hole in the ground. The government in its annual report should, after proper investigation, expose all those wildcats which they are able to discover and locate. Something should also be done to assist prospectors. There

can be no doubt that the mines which we know of in Canada at the present time do not represent a very large fraction of the mines which might be discovered. I have on other occasions urged on the government that something should be done to assist prospectors, to grubstake prospectors if you like. I know that is done in other countries, and I know it has been very successful. I would therefore suggest that the Department _ of Mines might do something in that direction.

In British Columbia we are also greatly interested in the fisheries. Last year the fisheries of British Columbia in the coastal waters represented some 827,000,000, or about half of the total revenue from fisheries in the whole of Canada. But the fishing industry of British Columbia is not in very good shape at the present time. Some of our varieties have become extinct. For instance, we had the sturgeon, a fish that produced a lot of revenue at one time. That fish when mature weighs from 1,000 to 1,200 pounds, and it would sell at 8 cents a pound. Large quantities of sturgeon were caught in British Columbia waters, but there are practically none there at the present time. They are all gone. Then the salmon of British Columbia are also becoming depleted. On the Fraser river, which was a few years ago the greatest salmon river in the world, one of the main runs, the sockeye run, has become practically extinct. In 1913 on the Fraser river alone they packed over 800,000 cases of sockeye salmon; last year they packed about 29,000. With sockeye salmon worth about $16 a case you see what the loss has been to the country. It seems to me that the Minister of Fisheries should take an interest in the British Columbia fisheries. I do not think the present minister has done so. So far as I am aware, he has made no survey of the British Columbia fisheries. I do not think he has ever been along the coast of British Columbia; I do not think he has ever been on the Fraser river; I do not think he has ever shown any interest at all in our fisheries; and I think I am safe in saying that the Minister of Fisheries has never attended a meeting of the marine and fisheries committee. That is all wrong, and I trust that if this government appoints a minister of fisheries it will appoint a man who knows something about fisheries, a man who will at least take some interest in the industry. Possibly I should not blame the present minister too much, because he is also Minister of Marine, which is a very large department in itself; and it is possible that by reason of his duties as Minister of Marine he has not had any time to devote to fisheries.

The Budget-Mr. McQuarrie

I have mentioned salmon; there is also the halibut. Halibut as well is becoming depleted. The halibut fisheries of British Columbia are very important, and you need not accept my own statement that there is a very marked depletion in those fisheries. If you care to look up the reports of the joint international committee, formed some three or four years ago, you will find that their last report calls attention to the very serious depletion of the halibut fisheries on the Pacific coast. I do not suppose the Minister of Fisheries would know the difference between a halibut and a salmon; I believe we should have some one as Minister of Fisheries who knows something about these matters and who will take an interest in his department.

I have mentioned sturgeon, salmon and halibut, and in addition we have the whale fisheries. That is an important industry as well, and those fisheries are becoming depleted also. There are a great many matters to engage the attention of the Minister of Fisheries and I think it would be proper to appoint such a minister from British Columbia, or at least we should have a man who would take an intelligent interest in this work.

We have our cabinet minister from British Columbia in the person of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. King, Kootenay). I think I can say that the minister has been paying a good deal of attention to the matter of pensions, but I am afraid the government is not so liberal as it might be in dealing with persons claiming pensions. I believe it is the desire of this house, and that desire has been evidenced whenever the matter has been up for discussion, that liberal treatment should be accorded the men who served overseas or to the dependents of such men, but I am afraid that the policy of this government or of the officials who are looking after that work is rather to keep such men from getting pensions if possible. I have come to that conclusion as the result of a number of cases which have been brought to my personal attention. I must say that whenever I have gone to the minister, as I have done in a number of cases, he has done the best he could under the circumstances and has adjusted some cases, but still I think there is room for improvement in that department.

However, I wish to deal more particularly with the Department of Health. I do not believe that department is doing very much to justify its existence, and in fact I do not know what it is doing that is of very great benefit to the country in comparison to the amount of money expended. I am afraid the government is not very considerate of

the patriotic men and women who are trying to do work which really should be cared for by the government, and in this connection there are two organizations to which I would like to refer. The first is the Victorian Order of Nurses, and I think it is unnecessary for me to detail the important work done by that association. I need only say that one of their objects is to provide nursing service to poor people who otherwise would not get it, and they are carrying on that work in a great many cities and districts throughout Canada. They are enabled to carry on largely through contributions which they receive from private individuals, and the government assists them only to the extent of a grant of $10,000.

Then there is another similar organization, the Canadian Red Cross Society, which is doing a wonderful work in connection with the health of the Canadian people. That society cooperates with the government; I believe it takes care of all the immigrants who come into Canada. Up to and including last year it cared for some 130,000 immigrants, and it is estimated that this year will bring the total up to some 200,000. That organization has forty outposts throughout Canada and does a magnificent work, but it receives no ffrant at all from this government. Applications for such a grant have been made time after time without result, and I think it is a crying shame and disgrace to Canada that the government should be so parsimonious with regard to such an important matter.

There is also another question which is engaging the attention of the people of Canada; I refer to full time health units.

I have before me a copy of a resolution which I have received from a great many women's organizations in British Columbia, as follows:

Whereas it is expedient that the control of communicable diseases, and of maternal and infant mortality in childbirth, as well as the medical inspection of school children throughout the smaller towns and villages and rural areas of the Dominion of Canada should be made more efficient;

And whereas the most satisfactory method of securing this result has been demonstrated in the province of British Columbia and Quebec and in many of the states of the United States of America, to be by the establishment of county or district health units in rural areas, such health units consisting of a full time medical health officer, sanitary inspector, public health and school nurses, and a secretary in charge of the clerical work;

And whereas such units at present established are financed by half the cost thereof being borne by the local districts, one-quarter by the province in which the district is situated, and one-quarter by the Rockefeller Foundation;

Questions

And whereas the grants from the Rockefeller Foundation are of a temporary nature for a period of three years only;

Be it therefore resolved that the government of the Dominion of Canada, through the Minister of National Health of the Dominion, be requested to provide for financial assistance to the provinces of the Dominion in the same manner as is at present provided for the control of venereal diseases, to the extent of one-quarter of the cost of maintaining such local health units and thus assume permanently the portion of the cost of such units covered by the temporary grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.

I notice also that the Canadian Council of Agriculture has adopted a resolution along the same lines. That is something which might be taken up, and I hope the minister will seriously consider it.

Now, to ohange the subject, there is another matter to which I would like to refer, and that is the absence of an airport in the vicinity of Vancouver. This is urgently required. The government will do nothing to assist in establishing that airport, and I think it is making a mistake. It would be a great asset to Canada and is something which is absolutely necessary. I regret also to learn that the government does not propose to extend the air mail this year to the Pacific coast. An air mail over the mountains would be a great convenience and I think it would form one of the most important units of the system. The government should consider the matter and decide to continue the air service to the British Columbia coast.

I am very much pleased to note in connection with the Canadian National Railways that it is proposed to do certain development work in the vicinity of New Westminster. I congratulate the government, or perhaps I should say the Canadian National Railways, for adopting that program. I believe they are interested in New Westminster as a port because there is a saving to them of one cent per bushel on the grain shipped through that port. There is no argument about that; that is admitted. No grain coming over the Canadian National railways should be shipped through Vancouver at all. That may seem a rash statement, but the fact is that they do not enter Vancouver over their own tracks.

On motion of Mr. Lapointe the debate was adjourned.

On motion of Mr. Lapointe the house adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Monday, April 8, 1929