Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation):

Where is

Riviere-Solitaire situated? In what district?

Mr. POULIOT (Translation):

In the county of Pontiac, twenty miles from Rouyn.

-do hereby swear on the Holy Bible and make the following statement:

On October 6 last, I left Montreal to establish myself at Riviere-Solitaire, as a settler. On October 26, my wife and my nine children joined me there. I had to pay $15 for the transfer of my household effects from Ville-Marie to Riviere-Solitaire. Instead of delivering them on my lot, the driver spread them over a distance of about 12 miles. In connection with this transfer I lost for at least $100 worth of my household effects, namely, two large boxes containing new clothes which we had purchased before leaving and which were to last, at least, over two years; I also lost a mattress. No one ever reimbursed us for this serious loss. My lot is situated at a distance of half a mile from the highway. The road leading to it was cleared, that is the trees were cut, but the road bed is soft. Therefore, it is impossible to reach my lot with a summer vehicle; however, it can be reached with a

i Mr. Pouliot.]

"log-sled" (a kind of a sled made of logs which is dragged along the ground). Since our arrival here, we have, so to speak, no mail service, that is, any one coming from Rouyn brings us our mail. Last Sunday, Mr. Leroux, the parish priest notified us in his sermon that, in the future, those who wanted their mail, would have to get it themselves at Rouyn, as he did not intend to bring it any more.

I have not been able, for more than fifteen days, to obtain goods from the store of Mr. Bellehumeur, at Riviere-Solitaire. My account amounts to $421.53, the balance completing the $500, I am told (Mr. Joseph Morin, who is one of the agents of colonization here, so informs me) is held to cover the travelling expenses to this place, of my family and myself, also to cover the freight rate on my household effects. Yet, previous to my departure from Montreal, I was informed at the C. P. Ry. offices, Windsor station, that our train fare and freight for household effects would be free of charge. I am charged seven fares at $10 each, or $70. The only food we have had in the house, since fifteen days, for my wife, children and myself, is flour. To-day, I arrived at Rouyn on foot, after having walked 32 miles, in order to obtain some work. As we had not eaten anything, I had to beg for my food. My friend and myself, have enough for another meal before returning, on foot, to Riviere-Solitaire, as no work can be had at Rouyn.

I now appeal to Mr. Jean-Fram;ois Pouliot, M.P., and ask him to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the sad plight of my family and myself and to request the government to supply us with food.

I know a number of families who are also starving; the following are the names of a few of them, all residents of Riviere-Solitaire.

Names of families: 1. Octave Laroeque; 2. Amable Laroeque; 3. Joseph Levasseur; 4. William Laviolette; 5. Jeremie Trepanier. There are many others who have no food whatsoever.

I would request the government to send an inspector here, you will then be able to judge whether I have given false evidence. Many of us are in a weak state and unless the government acts immediately, there will be deaths to register.

I sign,

Marcel Essiambre, Rivi5re-Solitaire, Temiskaming, (Signed) Marcel Essiambre.

iSworn before me, this 25th day of April, 1933. .

(Signed) Nelson Pinder,

(Justice of the Peace for the district of Pontiac).

Note.-I have an infant 8 months old to whom milk is refused.

(Signed) Marcel Essiambre.

I forwarded this letter to the hon. Minister of Labour enclosing also mine which is as follows:

Ottawa, April 28, 1933. Honourable W. A. Gordon,

Minister of Labour,

Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Mr. Gordon:

Referring to your statement of yesterday (Hansard, p. 4644) on the condition of settlers

Settlers in Rouyn District

in Rouyn and other parts of Quebec, Mr. Laforce has wired me that "no families back to the land were placed Rouyn or immediate surroundings."

Mr. Marcel Essiambre's telegram which I have read on April 26th (Hansard, p. 4615-6) was sent from Rouyn and it mentioned that a letter was to follow.

I have received that letter only yesterday and I forward you a copy of it.

You will see by that letter that Mr. Essiambre or Essiandre is one of the settlers at La Riviere Solitaire, and that man walked the whole way, about twenty miles, from La Riviere Solitaire to get some work in Rouyn wherefrom he sent his telegram.

I did not mention in the house that Mr. Essiambre was living at Rouyn, but it appeared by the telegram itself wherefrom it was sent.

Mt. Laforce, who, as you said, "acts for the Canadian National Railways on the committee with respect to this work" has added: "No back to land families province Quebec in distress provided they have shown willingness to work."

You will note that Mr. Essiambre's letter has been sworn before a justice of the peace. The only thing he asks, and it seems very fair, is the visit of an inspector. He writes: "You will then see if I perjure myself."

Therefore the sworn statement made by that man is most serious and deserves every consideration.

Mr. Essiambre says that he is the father of an eight months' child and who is refused milk. Can you expect from such a child "the willingness to work" mentioned by Mr. Laforce?

You have stated that only two settlers had been assisted by your government in my constituency and that you believed that the other settlers there had been placed by the province of Quebec; but the above mentioned wire came from Rouyn and the sender was a settler from La Riviere Solitaire.

Therefore, will you kindly let me know at once if your government had anything to do with the settlement of La Riviere Solitaire? This is my first question.

My second question is: What are the settlements to which your government has made any contribution in the province of Quebec?

My third question is as follows: If your government had anything to do by contribution or otherwise with the settlement at La Riviere Solitaire, will you kindly see to it at once that an inspector from your department is sent there to interview Mr. Essiambre and the people mentioned in his letter, in order to have a true, complete and impartial report on the matter which seems to be very serious.

In fact, this morning I have received another wire from J. D. Valiquette, dated Rouyn, but I presume that that gentleman is one of the settlers of La Riviere Solitaire. You will note that he says that his children are very weak.

I am anxious to receive his letter and I will send a copy to you as soon as I get it.

I regret not to have the time to translate some of the documents which I send you but it is easier for you to have it done at once by your staff.

My only appeal is to your sense of justice and to your good heart. This is why I expect a fair answer with great eagerness.

I wrote another letter to the hon. gentleman on May 1 but as yet I have received no answer. I desire to take this opportunity to thank the newspapers which have published the letter written by Mr. Essiambre. I refer particularly to the newspapers La Presse, La Patrie, Le Devoir and Le Droit which have brought these facts to the notice of the public. They must be known to everyone. Only this morning I received another letter, also sworn to by the same gentleman, which reads:

Sworn Statement

I, Marcel Essiambre, a settler of Riviere-Solitaire, hereby swear on the Holy Bible and make the following statement: I arrived this evening from Riviere-Solitaire, together with my nephew Frederic Larocque, after having walked 32 miles. As we had no money and had not eaten any food, we had to make up our mind to beg for food. After having, explained to a Rouyn citizen that we were poor settlers having come from Montreal and settled at Riviere-Solitaire, and that we had not eaten any dinner that day, he gave us our supper, and a bed for the night. He showed me in the newspaper "La Presse" what the minister, W. A. Gordon, had said regarding the statement I had made in my telegram; the newspaper contained the following: That my name did not appear on the files of the department, that in the back to the land scheme under the Dominion government, no settler was located in Rouyn or surroundings. I deem it my duty to furnish to the one who defends our cause in the House of Commons, Mr. J. F. Pouliot, the facts such as sworn to, in order to make known the truth and prevent those charged of resorting to lies justifying their actions. I left Montreal on October 6 last, and after reaching Riviere-Solitaire, I settled on lot 7, range 8, township of Desandrouin; my family left Montreal on October 26 to join me and ever since then we have been residing on my lot, located at a distance of 32 miles from Rouyn. To-day I am looking for work because I am certain that if I remain on my lot we shall all starve to death. I have no hesitation in advising my relations and friends who reside in Montreal not to come and settle at Riviere-Solitaire, it is a real snare and the best place to starve to death. All our surroundings here consist in deceit and hypocrisy. We are shamefully robbed of the few dollars granted to us by the city of Montreal and the Dominion government. The provincial government does not seem to have paid its quota, because the drivers who transferred our household effects have not, according to them, been paid.

I eamnot vouoh for these facts; I simply quote the sworn statement such as it is:

Food and other articles were sold to us at twice their value. Our letters are unsealed, taken out and lost, while the goods sent to us through the mail are stolen. We have no mail service, we must depend on every one. If the minister, Mr. Gordon, wishes to be better informed, let him send some one to hold an inquiry (some serious person) and he will discover quite a number of poor settlers who had their goods stolen, their letters opened or stolen. For months past our member, Mr. Bel ex, has been promising us that mail service

Settlers in Rouyn District

Mr. Essiamlbre makes certain comments about the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Belec) and out of deference to the latter I shall not read them.

If federal inspectors have held inquiries, I do not hesitate to state, under oath, that they did not fulfil their duty, they made false statements and did not endeavour to discover the truth.

First, our member, Mr. Charles Belec, in the grand speech he recently delivered, was bold enough to state publicly that we had a well equipped hospital; I wish to state, under oath

Mr. Essiambre uses language which I shall not repeat, however, he absolutely contradicts the statement of the hon. member for Pontiac.

-we have no hospital or even a doctor. Although I am but a poor settler, I shall take the liberty of telling our member, Mr. Charles Belec-

Neither shall I quote the words Mr. Essi-ambre uses.

-that he should defend in the house his constituents so that we would not be forced to ask an outside member to request on our behalf charity for our families and ourselves.

Sworn before me, May the second, the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, at Rouyn, witness,

(Signed) Nelson Pinder, Commissioner of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec, Abitibi district.

I sign,

(Signed) Marcel Essiambre.

I took the trouble to communicate with the Post Office department to verify the statement of Mr. Essiambre, in connection with the mail service; the following is the letter received, dated May 1, last, from Mr. Maurice Grondin, private secretary to the hon. Postmaster General.

Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot, M.P.,

House of Commons,

Ottawa.

Dear Mr. Pouliot:

I am instructed by the hon. Mr. Sauve, to acknowledge receipt of your letter addressed to him on March 28 last,'in connection with the mail service at Riviere-Solitaire-Rouyn. There is not yet any post office located at Riviere-Solitaire. A request for one has already been made, however, the necessary arrangements have not, so far, been completed.

As the list of addresses published by the Post Office Department is arranged by each local post office, this wall explain why no list of addresses has yet been made. As to the transport of mail, tenders were asked for a semi-weekly service between Riviere-Solitaire and Arntfield. The contract has not yet been awarded.

I remain, sir,

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) Maurice Grondin,

Private Secretary.

I think it shameful, sir, that the 2,800 people who reside at Riviere-Solitaire, since October last, have not yet any mail service. Is it to prevent these poor people from broadcasting their legitimate complaints against the way they are treated by the governments and municipalities? If that is the reason there is not only Mr. Essiambre who has to complain.

I also received such a complaint from Mr. Joseph-Donat Valiquette in a telegram dated at Rouyn, however, this gentleman resides at at Mont-Bayard, in the neighbourhood of iRiviere-Solitaire. This telegram was also sent "C.O.D." on April 27, last.

Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot, M.P.

Ottawa, Out.

My family and myself nothing to eat. Ask you to rise in house and request the government to send food. My children are in a weak state. Writing to-day.

(Signed) J. D. Valiquette. Sworn Statement

I, Joseph-Donat Valiquette, previously residing in Montreal, father of four children, settled at Rivifere-Solitaire, Temiskaming, on October of last year, do hereby swear on the Holy Bible and make the following statement:

I left Montreal on October 6 last to settle at Riviere-Solitaire, under the system which grants $600 to a settler. After reaching Riviere-Solitaire, I decided to take my lot at Mont-Bayard. which is the next parish, situated 12 miles from Riviere-Solitaire.

My account, I am told, amounts to $499. Now, the store of Cote. Limited, refuses to give me food for my family and myself. When I left home this morning, all my wife had in the house was half a kettle of beans and bread. We have been living for the last fifteen days on nothing else but boiled beans, without grease or pork.

Our boots are all worn out. We still have flour and beans to last us about three or four days.

I appeal to Mr. Jean-Francois Pouliot, M.P., to rise in the house and request the government to send us food in order that we may not starve to death.

The following are the names of a few families who, like myself, are starving. These families reside at Mont-Bayard: Messrs. Gravel, Gagnon, and many others whose names I cannot recall, at present.

Sworn before me, this 26th April, 1933, at Rouyn, Quebec.

(Signed) Nelson Pinder, Commissioner of the Superior Court for the province of Quebec, Abitibi district.

I sign,

Josepli-Donat Valiquette, Mont-Bayard,- Temiskaming, Que. (Signed) J. D. Valiquette.

Carried.

Mr. POULIOT:

Mr. Speaker, I always try to be lenient towards those who ask questions

Settlers in Rouyn District

when I am making a speech, but the other day when I was saying that it was a crime to let the children of our race die of hunger, some hon. members opposite dared to shout "Hurrah." There may be some excuse for their not understanding fully what I was saying but they should not make fun of these distressing cases. It is not a pleasure to me to bring up these matters before the house;

I do it because I feel it to be my duty to defend these families who have been placed in the middle of a wilderness, cut off from everyone. I feel that my action is not only in accordance with the rules of this house but in accordance with the rules of humanity. I feel sure that no man or woman in this country wants to see a human being go hungry. These men do not ask for money; all they ask is that a fair investigation be made of their cases. They do not want this investigation to be held by those who are paid according to the number of settlers they place on the land; they want it to be held by someone who is fair, impartial and independent. They want someone who will tell the truth to the Minister of Labour in Ottawa and the Minister of Colonization in Quebec. That is all I ask of the minister here and all I have been asking of the Minister of Colonization in Quebec. The latter writes me under date of the first of this month that he intends sending a man there to make an investigation. I ask the government-and I urge upon them the necessity of doing this- to send there a man who is competent, independent, fair, who will interview those people who are starving in the wilderness and report as to their condition. Then we shall find out whether Mr. Laforce is telling the truth when he says that no one is dying of hunger in Quebec. I want the minister to understand what I say. Mr. Laforce says that no one who is willing to work has been in distress. Can you expect a starving man to show unwillingness to work?

Mr. OANTLEY:

Better go home and put

your head to soak.

Mr. POULIOT:

I am sorry, but I shall put the hon. member for Pictou in the same class as those who shouted "Hurrah" the other day. I pity him. A man of his age, who must have a heart in his body, should not say anything like that when I am speaking of human misery. If the hon. member for Pictou were bringing to the attention of the house the sad case of those who are suffering in his constituency, he may be sure I should not jeer at him, but I would sympathize fully with him, and I promise, when he speaks in the house I shall pay attention to him. If he has a stone instead

of a heart in his body, I shall leave him alone and I shall not mention him again in my speech as I would not honour him by paying any more attention to his gibes.

I have made an appeal to the sense of justice and good heart of the minister. I am asking him something that is fair and reasonable, something that any man who has a heart in his body would do at once. I urge him to see to it immediately that an inspector is sent there to find out whether those men who sent sworn letters about their miseries and grievances, are telling the truth or not. The minister must take with a grain of salt those reports that are sent to him or to the provincial government stating that everything is well in those newly settled districts. That is all I have to say, and I say it in all earnestness and sincerity, hoping at least that the minister will believe I am not playing petty politics; that all I wish to do is to open his eyes and tell him that those who have already made reports to him have not told the truth.

Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiska-ming):

Mr. Speaker, on account of the fact that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has brought up this matter, I wish to say that the policy of the government in connection with the back to the land movement has placed a number of families in my constituency. I believe during the coming summer the number who will be placed by the government in conjunction with the provincial government will be nearly 400 families, so that on account of these facts the house will allow me to say a few words on this important question.

I am absolutely in favour of the movement because I believe out of it will come a great deal of good as ultimately it will help to bring about a balancing of population between urban and rural centres. I said, I believe five weeks ago, that the government should have a better follow-up system, but taking the movement as a whole, I think it is good and that some benefit has been accomplished. Of course it is always easy to single out certain individual oases and on them build up an argument before parliament, but, as I say, the movement as a whole will be of benefit. For one thing, it makes the governments, both federal and provincial, realize the serious situation that exists in our rural sections. I believe I mentioned a few weeks ago to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) the case of a man named James McLean, a very fine type of Canadian, at Frederickhouse, who has taken up a lot under that scheme, but who finds it almost impossible to make both ends meet.

Settlers in Rouyn District

In a letter which I read to the .house he mentioned that he was allowed only $1.40 a head. He has eight children, so that with his wife and himself, there are ten of a family who have to live on $14 a month. Every hon. member will realize that it is absolutely impossible to keep body and soul together on such an amount. I could cite two or three others cases, but I do not believe it would be in order to do so at this time. Again I repeat: No family and certainly not a single man should be allowed to settle on the land after the end of June. No matter how well administered the scheme may be, no one should be allowed to go on the land in the fall or winter. In the last two years we have allowed many people to settle in the northern sections in the fall or late in the summer and it is impossible for those fine people to make a success. On that score, however, I believe the government is well seized of the situation.

There is another case which I want the government to understand. A number of those new farmers who have been taken away from their previous occupations and thrown into a new one are finding it impossible, even under the $600 scheme, to finance the buying of seed grain so as to put in a crop on the land which they cleared last year. I believe the government out of either the equalization fund or in some other way should find it possible to get some of the surplus grain which has been accumulating in the west for a few years and which must deteriorate, and distribute it in the northern section of Ontario. I have in mind hundreds .of cases of farmers and settlers who find it impossible to put any seed into the ground for the simple reason that they have not the money to do so. I believe $500,000 would be quite sufficient to meet the requirements of those people. I have under my hand a newspaper dispatch in which I read that the provincial government is sending Hon. Doctor Robb to make an inquiry into the situation, and really this is praiseworthy because a minister of the Ontario government will find out for himself the actual situation and will see that some help must be given. The provincial government go further; they say that they are going to give to some of the settlers who at present are on relief, from ten to twenty bushels of seed grain. This is a move in the right direction. I believe the federal government in this back to the land scheme should enlarge its policy by allowing a sum of $500,000 to be voted by parliament so that not a single settler placed on the land under this scheme will suffer from lack of seed during the present season. As regards the view that they should be self-supporting,

we all know that on new holdings or farms, it is impossible for these people for a number of years to make the thing go with the crop that they find there. Unless they have some seed grain placed in the soil this season, they will be in a worse position next fall than they are at the present time.

There is another matter which I believe will come under this heading, and which has a great deal to do with public health, particularly in the unorganized sections of our country, especially northern Ontario and northern Quebec. We know the doctors in the organized localities are looking after the population not only in the districts in which they live but also in the unorganized sections. I have in my hand a regulation issued by the provincial government last fall whereby it has curtailed the amount that is to be paid to the doctors for their services, extending to every section in which they are giving medical attention. I said in the house early this session, and I repeat that this regulation is actually prejudicial to the health of the individual. It is very harmful to the rural sections and every member will readily understand that a sum of $100, where each doctor has to look after a population of at least

6,000 people, is ridiculous. I 'believe it is in order to read the regulation so that the house may be fully seized with the situation. It reads:

Regulations as to medical services and medical supplies. This statement is issued in order to clarify in the minds of the municipalities and the doctors the proper interpretation of the phrase "medical services and medical supplies" which appears in the order in council dated the 19th of September, 1932.

At the outset, it must be clearly understood that the government is not forcing any policy upon the municipalities with regard to this matter. Each municipality has the right to decide for itself whether it wishes to undertake any medical services in connection with direct relief, and also as to the nature and plan of such medical assistance.

2. As set out in the Public Health Act (section 51, clauses 1. 2, 3 and 4) municipalities are directly responsible for the medical attendance and medical supplies of their indigent population.

This new regulation might well apply to other sections of the province of Ontario. The Minister of Labour is familiar with the northern part of that province, and must realize fully that it cannot apply to the section of the country from which I come. In that part of the province there are only a few organized rural districts. Most of them are in the colonization stage, and there are no municipal bodies to take care of them. A doctor from Timmins giving services in one of the surrounding rural districts would find

Settlers in Rouyn District

it absolutely impossible to collect fees for any such services rendered. The same would apply to the district surrounding the town of Cochrane. That applies as forcibly to other sections, such as those surrounding Kapus-kasing and Hearst. Then, regulation No. 3 is as follows:

Any municipality wishing to undertake the furnishing of medical [DOT] services and medical supplies and desiring to secure government assistance in connection with such work under the order in council above referred to must comply with the following requirements:

(a) All medical treatment to indigent patients in their homes or in doctors' offices is included, also maternity services at homes, as well as after treatment, in major emergency operations outside of hospitals; the doctors furnishing the necessary medical supplies.

(b) For such services as outlined in the previous subsection the doctor may be allowed one-half the established prevailing fee for such service in the community.

(c) Surgical and medical treatment in hospitals or other institutions for treatment of disease and surgical operations outside of hospitals are not included.

(d) Before the medical services and supplies are given an order in writing for same must be obtained from the relief officer, except in very emergent cases where the relief officer can give such an order after some part of the services required has been performed.

(e) Accounts for medical services and

supples must be rendered by the doctor in an itemized statement, and each account must show the details of the prevailing charges in the locality for such services upon which the one-half claim is based. Such account must be rendered to the relief officer and forwarded by him to this department with the monthly statement.

(f) In rural municipalities a maximum mileage fee of twenty-five cents per mile, one way, may be allowed.

(g) An amount in excess of $100 in a doctor's account for any one month will not be allowed.

(h) It will be observed that "medical services and medical supplies" is one of the items of direct relief that must be included in the forty per cent as set out in the order in council.

This rule, Mr. Speaker, is of absolutely no use to our section of the country. If my information is correct, in the city of Ottawa medical men giving their services under the relief act are allowed a minimum of $400 per month. I suppose they attend an average of

2,000 people. In our section, however, in the unorganized districts the doctors have to look after the health of at least 6,000 people. Travelling conditions are poor in a good many cases, he would have to go fifty miles each way, making a round trip of one hundred miles, for which he is allowed twenty-five cents a mile one way. While that may be fair enough in the summer months when automobiles can be used, in the winter months the amount allowed by the government is not sufficient. We know that doctors in the newer sections have a more difficult task than those in the more populated areas. I do not know of any doctor in my section of the country jwho through lack of money has refused to give service. Let us visualize what would happen for instance, in a maternity case: The doctor is called, but on aocount of the fact that the government is not willing to pay fifty per cent of the fee, he refuses to attend. Supposing that on account of such refusal death follows; who would be responsible, or who would receive the blame? It would be the doctor. I put this fair question to the house: Is a doctor more obliged to

give public service than any other citizen? Must he make more sacrifice for the public than any other citizen? A hundred dollars a month to attend to 6,000 people, and to supply them with proper medicaments, is wholly inadequate. To be fair I must say that in some cases the provincial government has given more; still the payment is inadequate. We have the spectacle of that splendid profession being compelled to make a sacrifice which is not asked from any other section of the population. I know of a cause where a doctor in the town of Jlaspuskasing received a call from an adjoining locality. In that instance the poor settler did not have money enough to pay for the phone call, and the doctor had to pay the reversed charge of $1.40. The doctor never hesitated, but went to attend the patient. He took his car, knowing that he would never receive a single cent for the services he was going to give. Surely a government could not object to helping pay a fee in an instance such as that. The minister may urge that this is a matter with which the provincial legislature should deal. I maintain however, as I said previously, that since we are voting money for relief, out of the federal treasury something should be done by the federal authorities, and it should take a lead in such matters.

To make my point clearer, and so that the house may be fully seized of the seriousness of the situation, I am going to read a letter from one of the doctors which is typical of several letters I have received from doctors in my section of the country. As I said a while ago, we all know that professional men, whether they be doctors or lawyers, never expect to get the full amount of their fees. This applies more forcibly to doctors, because in addition to giving their personal attention they have to supply the necessary

Settlers in Rouyn District

remedies for treatment. The letter before me, dated February 2, 1933, is addressed to Mr. J. A. Ellis, of the Ontario Unemployment Relief Department, and is as follows:

Two weeks ago your representative, Mr. Tackaberry, at the Northern Development office, sent me a copy of regulations as to medical services and medical supplies, dated December 29, 1932, asking me for comments on same by return post. Hurriedly, I gave him my impressions.

The flu epidemic has not given me time to go further into the subject. To-day, however, financial conditions urge me to come to you for information.

I was this morning asked by a man on relief to go ten miles to attend to his wife sick in bed for the last six days. This man walked in ten miles and back ten miles, which is not unusual here. I called the relief department for the $5 livery pay in the ease. Receiving no satisfactory answer I at first refused the husband. Eventually I went, driving twenty miles with team and driver, and opened an abscess in the mouth.

The problem that presents itself is "How deep shall I sink before I stop." My expenses are so very heavy and the present returns so insignificant that I have had to borrow. My limit at the bank has been reached. I can no further risk the welfare of my family and go deeper into debt without assuring myself of the reimbursement of my expenses, and money to keep my wife and seven children going.

Like everybody else, doctors are willing to make sacrifices, but in return expect a living. On account of the population under our care, the amount of work done, and the hardships encountered in this climate, covering the distances over roads, full of impediments, the inevitable expenses are such that the amount of money allowed in the south is altogether inadequate here: and just lately the flu epidemic has intensified that condition.

Whereas I concur with subsections a, b, d and e. of regulation No. 3, I must point out that subsections c, f and g, are not at all suitable to the district. Doctors with mixed practices of medicine and surgery can, as a rule, fairly well forego their surgical fees, but when patients are so far apart that doctors cannot possibly make the round, or where homes are so unsanitary that patients cannot be left there - (settlers' homes are all of pioneer age here, log shacks, all of them, many tumbling down, previously discarded homes even being at times used)-and must of all necessity be brought to hospital for care.

The hospital here takes the place of the home down below, and we should be paid for such services. Unlike the southern hospitals there are no house surgeons here to assume responsibility of patients and our attention is constant. As corroboration to my assertions I might tell you a maternity case of mine died in her home lately because no doctor could reach her. The coroner had to investigate.

Personally I care for about 6,000 of a population in a radius of 50 miles. During this flu epidemic my professional expenses (drugs and supplies, auto or livery, office rent and care, tax, insurance and inevitable expenditure, train, travelling bills) vary between $500 and $600 a month.

To one who does not know our circumstances I will say "not one drop of medicine or one article of medical supply has been handed out that should not have been." In most cases I should have given more.

Unfortunately I have reached my limit financially and physically. (I have been practising my profession twenty-four years). It is not to be forgotten that three or four doctors in Cochrane do incomparably more work than southern doctors, and, if I may say so, undergo hardships unknown in the south.

I am now asking for information and fair treatment, commensurate with the relief work done. I only want my expenses, on relief work, and fair compensation.

I would not wish my letter to be construed as a threat, but in all justice I cannot work all day in one municipality and all night in another one, spend $20 a day to receive $3.33.

Keep in mind that there is one doctor in a city to every 600 or 800 people in a small radius, whereas I attend seven or eight times that number in a radius twenty-five times as large.

This letter is written explanatory to our conditions, and imbued I believe with good intentions. I should be pleased to give any information one might wish, any time.

I have gone to homes where five, eight or ten had la grippe, and three or four such houses in succession, fifty miles from my office. I have had to furnish those poor but honest people with requirements deemed necessary to effect a cure in as short a time as possible. There is no drug store in any of the twenty communities I have to attend to. It is absolutely out of the question to give such patients medicine for two or three days, it must be for eight, ten or fifteen days as the ease may be, and for the number that are affected.

Men have skied or hiked eighteen miles each way to my office. Mothers have pulled babies six or eight miles behind them to my office and other mothers have walked ten miles to my office. One mother, chilled, drove eighteen miles at 15 degrees below zero with a sick infant in her arms to my office. That is only a few, and they must be looked after, and looked after with humanity, and I cannot support the cost alone, or any more.

I have given thirty-two ounces of cough medicine to a family of ten, fifty miles away, and as much tonic; that was not enough, it only lasted four days, and rightly so. The cost may seem high, but it is both expensive and sad in the community to see a few cases developing tuberculosis or a young father dying. I have seen both in this present epidemic. It is very heart-rending at times, but most of those people on relief do not deserve to, must not be left unattended, especially now.

Whatever it may seem to cost, I don't get it. 1 would welcome a relief agent from Toronto to go my round and investigate.

My yearly income tax reports to Ottawa show my expenses, professional only, at from $5,000 to $6,000 a year. They are the same now.

Quite correctly you have assumed 25 cents a fair remuneration for mileage. This is commensurate with conditions where a car can be used. Herein you will find affixed a cartoon of the country physician. Now that has happened often to me, but for displacements it is worse yet, as we have to hire a team of horses

Special War Revenue Act

and driver whom we must pay 50 cents a mile one way (and it is very fair). You cannot allow us less than we actually pay.

There was a bad apostle among the twelve, and there must be an odd doctor who will forget himself sometimes, but our cases here are bona fide. Our neighbouring doctors are by rail 70 miles west, 92 miles east, 125 miles south (Timmins 60 miles southeast) and the north pole limit north. We cater to the municipalities of Cochrane, Glackmeyer, Fauquier, Moonbeam, besides the unorganized districts which comprise Frederick House, Hunta. Driftwood, Holland, Devonshire, Abitibi, Brower, Norembega, Genier, Clute, Gardiner, and a few others.

To fix an amount equitably for doctors' services one must take into consideration the situation as it arises in the district. There are no industries, no manufactures, no regular pay here, but what comes from the community. Nine-tenths of the settlers are on relief, and the other one-tenth has no money. This is a railway junction but the railway has its own doctor who is paid per capita.

I depend for living on the work I do, which is 95 per cent relief, requested by the relief officer, with the clear understanding of a 50 per cent usual fee.

If the minister wishes the name of the doctor I shall be glad to give it; I believe he knows him personally. I think that the health of our fine pioneer population is at present jeopardized, and that we cannot expect further sacrifice by the medical profession in the new sections of our country.

I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the attention that the house has given me. In closing I want to correct a statement which I believe has been prejudicial to our section of the country, made by a controller of the city of Ottawa a few days ago. I understand that controller visited some sections of northern Ontario and Quebec to see the progress made in the back to the land movement, and he came back here and made statements which I think are not fair to northern Ontario. In the first place, if he wanted to make a thorough investigation he should have gone to the north country when the snow was not on the ground, so that he could see the quality of the soil and the facilities we have to clear land. But he went there when the ground was covered with two or three feet of snow and then came back and said that no citizen of Ottawa should be sent to that country. I protest against that statement which cannot go unanswered. It is true that at present many of them are on relief, but I believe that with a proper policy of direction and assistance on the part of the federal and provincial authorities they will again know days of prosperity and comfort. As a representative of the new sections of Ontario 1 deny the statement made by the Ottawa controller, which was given much

publicity, in the press of this city at any rate, because I state again that there is a future for agriculture in our northern country.

Before resuming my seat I voice the fervent wish that the federal and provincial governments will have a better follow-up system in connection with their back to the land operations. I am going to study the situation through that country all summer; I am going to spend most of my time among these new settlers to find out on the ground their requirements. I know that the great majority of those who have gone there have gone with the same spirit that animated our pioneer fathers. But again I repeat that the government will have to do more for those fine people than they have done in the past. I hope the matter will be given attention so that there may be no failure in the policy so well inaugurated two years ago, being certain that its success will prove most beneficial to the whole of Canada.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Morand in the chair.

The CHAIRMAN:

Paragraph 10 of the resolution, schedule III, articles exempt.

10. That schedule III to the said act, as enacted by chapter fifty-four of the statutes of 1932, be repealed and the following substituted as schedule III:-

Schedule III

Bread, not to include rolls, buns or similar goods, whether sweetened or not; flour, not including self-raising flour; animals living; live poultry; meats and poultry, fresh; meats salted or smoked; milk, including buttermilk; condensed milk, evaporated milk and powdered milk; cream; butter; cheese; lard, when produced in Canada; eggs; vegetables, fruits grains and seeds in their natural state; shorts; bran and middlings when for use as cattle, hog, poultry or other stock feed; alfalfa meal; oil cake, oil cake meal; grains mixed or crushed for cattle or poultry feed; hay; straw; hops, when produced in Canada; nursery stock; vegetable plants; other farm produce sold by the individual farmer of his own production; bees; honey; sugar; maple syrup; salt, when manufactured or produced in Canada; ice; fish and products thereof; ores of metals of all kinds; fuel other than in liquid form; gold and silver in ingots, blocks, bars, drops, sheets or plates unmanufactured; British and Canadian coin and foreign gold coin; logs and round unmanufactured timber; split fence posts; fence posts, railroad ties, pulpwood, tan bark, and other articles the product of the forest, when produced and sold by the individual settler or farmer; newspapers and quarterly, monthly, bi-monthly and semi-monthly magazines and weekly literary' papers unbound; materials for use only in the construction, equipment and repair of ships; ships licensed to engage in the

ing boxes and bottles containing the same; maps, photographic reproductions, casts as models, etchings, lithographic prints or charts; mechanical equipment of a class or kind not made in Canada. All articles in this item, when specially imported in good faith for the use and by the order of any society or institution incorporated or established solely for religious philosophical, educational, scientific or literary purposes, or for the encouragement of the fine arts, or for the use and by order of any public hospital, college, academy, school, or seminary of learning in Canada, and not for sale, under regulations prescribed by the minister;

700. Animals and articles brought into Canada temporarily and for a period not exceeding three months, for the purpose of exhibition or of competition for prizes offered by any agricultural or other association: Provided a bond shall be first given in accordance with regulations prescribed by the minister, with the condition that the full duty to which such animals or articles would otherwise be liable shall be paid in case of their sale in Canada, or if not reexported within the time specified in such bond;

701. Menageries, horses, cattle, carriage and harness of, under regulations prescribed by the minister;

702. Carriages for travellers, and carriages laden with merchandise, not to include circus troupes or hawkers, under regulations prescribed by the minister;

703. Travellers' baggage, under regulations prescribed by the minister;

704. Apparel, wearing and other personal and household effects, not merchandise, of British subjects dying abroad, but domiciled in Canada; books, pictures, family plate or furniture, personal effects and heirlooms left by bequest;

Articles and materials to 'be used exclusively in the manufacture of goods enumerated in customs tariff items: 281, 281a, 391a, 406a, 406b, 409a, 409b, 409c, 409d, 409e, 409f, 409g, 409i,409j, 409k, 409n, 410b, 411, 411a, 411b, 439c,

440k, 442, 442a, 476, 476a, 480, 538, 663, 663a, 663b, 666, 667, 696.

Materials, not to include plant equipment, consumed in process of manufacture or production, which enter directly into the cost of goods enumerated in customs tariff items: 281, 281a, 391a, 406a, 406b, 409a, 409b, 409c, 409d, 409e,409f, 409g, 409i, 409j, 409k, 409n, 410b, 411,

411a, 411b, 439c, 440k, 442a, 476, 476a, 480, 538, 063, 663a, 666, 667, 696.

Mr. RHODES:

Mr. Chairman, before we

proceed I want to take this earliest opportunity to refer to a difference of opinion between the hon. member for Shelburne-Yar-mouth (Mr. Ralston) and myself when the committee was in session yesterday, with respect to the total amount involved in the taxes imposed under the recent budget. Upon inquiry I find that my hon. friend was correct, and that I was in error. Perhaps I may be permitted to use language which is familiar to my hon. friend, "by way of confession and avoidance," that I was compelled suddenly to resort to my recollection, without the opportunity to refer to the actual figures. It serves only to illustrate the fact that- on a

[The Chairman.)

spring evening after many weeks of arduous work during the session it does not do to trust to one's memory for figures. I feel that I owe it to my hon. friend as well as to myself that I should make this correction, and also for the purposes of accuracy of the record.

Mr. RALSTON:

I think my hon. friend

will find in the record that when I corrected him last night I gave him credit for not attempting in any way to mislead the committee.

Mr. DUFF:

Mr. Chairman, clause 10,

which includes a very long schedule of articles, refers to items which are exempt from the sales tax. The sales tax at the present time on certain articles is fixed at 6 per cent. Last year, if I rememibeT correctly, in addition to the items enumerated on pages 12 and 13 of this resolution, another commodity that is commonly used in the household was not subject to sales tax, an article which is used by nearly every one in greater or less degree, and I am going to appeal to the Minister of Finance to have it included in this schedule of exemptions. Yesterday the minister gave certain reasons as to why it was necessary to impose a special tax of 2 cents per pound on sugar; in fact he has been giving those reasons for the last two or three days. I am not going to argue with the minister with regard: to that tax, because I would be out of order and also because of t'he fact that last night the house passed on division that section of the proposals. But in view of the fact that a tax of 2 cents per pound is being collected from the people of this country, who have consumed sugar in much larger quantities in recent years, I appeal to the minister to exempt molasses from the tax. I remember that in my younger days molasses was used to a much greater extent than is the case at present, and I am very much afraid that as a result of this 2 cent tax on sugar the ordinary people in this country will have to use molasses to a greater extent once more. Even with the increased consumption of sugar molasses remained a household necessity. In going over my constituency and meeting the boys and girls of three, four, five and six years of age, especially between ten and eleven o'clock in the morning and four and five o'clock in the afternoon I find that nearly every child has a piece of bread covered with molasses. This makes a very palatable meal and promotes the health of the children.

Mr. MULLINS:

Molasses and sulphur.

Mr. DUFF:

In addition molasses is used

largely by the fishermen and lumbermen together with beans and other articles of food.

Special War Revenue Act

I do not object particularly to the tax on sugar, but I suggest to the minister that in view of the fact that this tax will result in a greater use of molasses he should include molasses in schedule HI, where it has been in previous years. This is the first time in a number of years that molasseis has been subject to this tax, and I strongly urge upon the minister that after having imposed a tax of 2 cents on sugar he should not also tax the molasses which many people will be compelled to use in future.

Mr. RHODES:

I have every sympathy

with the viewpoint held by my hon. friend from Antigonish-GuySborough, but speaking solely from the point of view of revenue I may say that he weakens rather than strengthens his argument when he intimates that if there were no tax placed upon molasses the consumption would be increased, with the consumption of sugar becoming less. My hon. friend will recall that the object of the tax was to raise revenue, and it was felt that since sugar was taxed molasses should properly bear at least a small tax, not comparable in any degree with the tax applied to sugar. The sales tax, as applied to molasses, based as it is upon the wholesale price, would mean an additional cost of only 2^ cents per gallon, and I fancy that a gallon of molasses would last that young lad whom my hon. friend saw on the street with a slice of bread spread with molasses, for at least a year. Even at that, however, if it were possible to devise a regulation which would permit the use of molasses by the poorer families without payment of a tax, small though the tax might be, I should be entirely agreeable to that being done. Unfortunately, however, molasses is capable of being used and is used in manufacturing processes and in many ways other than for household table use, and there is no method of division by which we could make the tax apply in the one case and not in the other. I may tell my hon. friend that I have recognized for some time that the tax would be open to the objections voiced by the hon. gentleman, but having regard to the circumstances I have briefly outlined I do not see how it is possible, in justice to those who have to pay such a heavy tax on sugar, to afford an exemption in the case of molasses.

Mr. DUFF:

I quite see the point raised

by the minister, and if he were exempting from the operation of the sales tax every article of common consumption used in the country that argument would be good. It seems to me, however, that when he exempts 53719-288

a great many other articles, some of which do not seem so important as molasses, his argument is not so strong. Not satisfied with putting a tax on sugar, which is one sweet, he is also putting a tax on molasses. I suggest to the minister that if he must raise revenue by putting a 6 per -cent sales tax on molasses surely that tax should apply also to phonograph records, prayer books, hymn books and a number of other articles included in the schedule. Surely molasses is much more important to the people of this country than even hymn books or prayer books. We can go to church and listen to someone else pray and sing. I have sat behind people in church who did not know one note from another; it would have been a great deal better if they had not opened their mouths, and the same thing applies sometimes in this chamber. So I think the minister's argument would be sound if the 6 per cent sales tax applied generally, but it does not. If the minister puts a sales tax on molasses while he leaves phonograph records, prayer books and other items free of that tax his argument does not hold water. I think he should give some consideration to my plea. I am not speaking simply to take up time; I know from my own experience that hundreds of thousands of gallons of molasses are used every year by the poorer people in this country, and I think the minister would be doing God's service if he added molasses to the list of exemptions.

Mr. RHODES:

Special War Revenue Act

done, but I do not wish it to be understood that 1 give any undertaking in that respect. I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said except this. My hon. friend speaks about phonograph records; they are subject to the Sales tax, the only exemption made being those used for educational purposes.

Mr. DUFF:

The minister says he cannot exempt molasses because it is used for a great many purposes other than domestic consumption. But the same thing applies to flour; flour also is used in the manufacture of candy. Flour is exempt from the sales tax and if the minister is not going to exempt molasses for the reason he has given, then I suggest he should not exempt flour. I will leave the matter with him. I have made my plea as strongly as possible on behalf of the poor people of this country who are going to be called upon to pay 2 cents a pound on their sugar. They will have to use more molasses and I do think that they should be given some consideration. While I see the force of the minister's argument, that molasses is used for purposes other than domestic consumption, it seems to me that molasses when used by people for tlheir tea or coffee should be exempt. I know that it is used in alcohol; I understand that you can make rum from molasses if you know how; and I do not object to the tax being imposed when the molasses is used for making candy. I agree that candy is a luxury in these times and is already taxed, but the ordinary 'householder is the person I aim thinking of-the fishermen in the county of Richmond and in other parts of Canada as well as the lumbermen working for twenty dollars a month. They use molasses in their tea and I think that the officials of the department could devise some means whereby this very necessary commodity might be placed on the list of exemptions when used for certain purposes. In line 10 of schedule HI reference is made to salt, which is exempt when manufactured or produced in Canada. We had some controversy over this last year, and perhaps the minister will say something about it. On page 13 reference is also made to salt-"Salt for use of the sea or gulf fisheries." That is exempt.

Mr. RHODES:

Yes.

Mr. DUFF:

Why is it necessary to specify it in the other item? Why not simply say salt and leave out the words "when manufactured or produced in Canada?" The words "for use of the sea or gulf fisheries" should also be omitted. There as no necessity for the

exemption to appear in both places when apparently the item is altogether free. As the minister knows, of course, I am in favour of abolishing the tax on salt.