1930-04-07

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 54, to incorporate Pine Hill Divinity Hall.-Mr. Black (Halifax).
Bill No. 55, to authorize the Niagara Parks Commission to erect, construct, acquire, maintain and operate a bridge across the Niagara river.-Mr. Chaplin.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure) moved that the recommendations contained in the first report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament, presented to the house on the third instant, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn) moved that the first report of the select standing committee on debates be concurred in.
Mr. GARDINER:: Explain.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: This report deals with the salaries and organization of the Hansard reporting staff. It appears that the application of the Hansard reporters to the Beatty commission was for some reason or other overlooked, and they were not included in the report of the commission. The work of the Hansard reporter is not that of any ordinary stenographer. He must be an expert reporter, capable of reporting persons whose diction and manner of speaking are altogether unfamiliar to him, at a rate of 250 words or

Debates Committee
more per minute. He must catch every interruption and note exactly where it comes from, and that without in any way interfering with the taking down of the speech he is reporting. He must also be able to spell the words that we mispronounce, to reconstruct the sentences that we do not construct correctly, to quote correctly the quotations that we misquote, to put sense into the sentences whose meaning we, speaking in haste, do not always make clear. He is also required to edit and make readable the speeches he reports. He must have a wide knowledge of literature and be familiar with a very wide range of subjects. It is true that he works only six months in the year, but he is disqualified by that very fact from taking any other permanent position. There was a time when Hansard reporters could be recruited from the press gallery. That was when the newspapermen took verbatim reports of the speeches delivered in the house. But that day has passed, and the staff can no longer be recruited from that source. Experienced reporters are very very rare, and great difficulty has been found in keeping the staff up to strength. Reporters with the qualifications of a Hansard man are drawing outside the civil service as much as $6,000 a year. There is a vacancy on the staff at present, which it has been found very difficult to fill. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, the committee has considered favourably the request of the Hansard reporters, and we respectfully submit that the salaries be revised according to the schedules given in the report. We are also asking that authority be given to increase the staff, and that recommendations be made to the Civil Service Commission so that when new appointments are requested during the session they can be made within a few days, instead of within a few months as is now the case.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
would like to refer to paragraph (c) of the committee's report, reading as follows:
(c) That the Editor of English Debates and the officer occupying the joint positions of the Editor of French Debates and Parliamentary Reporter be placed in the same class and paid the same remuneration.
I would ask if it is not true that about 90 to 95 per cent of the debates of this house are carried on in English, and if the work of the editor of the English debates is not very much heavier. Why, then, should the editor of the English debates and the editor of the French debates be on the same basis?


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: As a member of the debates committee, I might say that the editor of the French debates of this house fills at the same time the position of a reporter of the proceedings, which the editor of the English debates does not. As both languages are on an equal footing in this house, I think my hon. friend should be thankful that more French is not spoken in the debates, because the sessions would then be very much longer.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: I
have no objection to the members of the Hansard staff receiving all that they are entitled to. If they are entitled to an increase to a minimum of $3,420, as recommended by the debates committee, I have no objection to that. The only comment I wish to make on that is this:	I note with what ease it is
possible to give to the higher paid officials working for the government an increase in their salary. Last year the house took considerable time discussing the wages of men who are receiving about eighty or ninety dollars per month. We found it impossible at that time to get any recommendation for an increase in the salaries of these low-paid men, and they are still receiving the same wages that they received last year. In increasing the pay of men or women in the employ of the government, I think we should begin at the bottom instead of at the top, and give the lower paid men at least the minimum salary which they demanded last year of $100 a month.
I understood that when the Beatty report came before parliament, we would have some opportunity of discussing its recommendations as a whole, and not piecemeal in this way. If recommendations are to come from the different committees of the house, it will be almost impossible for us to be given an opportunity of discussing the Beatty report as a whole; we may have to discuss it on half a dozen different occasions. I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, if it is the intention of the government to give the house an opportunity of discussing the report of the Beatty commission, so that I along with others who have an interest in the lower paid men may be enabled to present our views in support of a minimum salary of $100 per month.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Tem-iscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to
answer the questions put by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Heaps).. But may I say that I am always impressed with the speeches of the hon. member for North Winnipeg, and if I cannot be present in the house to hear those speeches I give myself the pleasure of reading the excellent reports in Hansard1. I think my hon. friend is per-
Debates Committee

fectly right in desiring to increase the salaries of the low salaried men and women in the service, and he has my hearty support, for I am a labour man in spirit, but their position will be in no way prejudiced by our taking measures to ensure that the present high standard of the reporting staff of this house is maintained. I think nothing too good can be said of the work of the present staff. As the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) very ably pointed out, I think our English speaking friends should be glad to see us French Canadians expressing our views in a tongue other than our own in order that we may be more generally understood. I have noticed1 on several occasions that many of our English-speaking friends do not always understand speeches delivered in French, and that is the one reason why I and other members on this side address the house in English. Nevertheless we use our mother tongue in the debates, and I think every opportunity should be afforded to have those speeches properly reported in both languages in the future as in the past.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Pouliot) who has just taken his seat and many of his colleagues on their extraordinary ability to speak so fluently and so eloquently in English. I envy them that ability and would I were in the same position with regard to French as they are with respect to English. But that, I take it, does not concern us particularly in considering this report. I object to it, Mr. Speaker, on, two grounds:	First,
that it is mandatory; and secondly, that it is an amendment to the report of the Beatty commission. This house has not yet had an opportunity of considering that report, and until we have had, I think amendments of this character should not be allowed to slip through in this way. I protest against what is virtually an amendment to the Beatty report; and I object to the sentence:
and that steps be taken by the Civil Service Commission to give effect to this recommendation.
being acted on until after we have fully considered the whole report.



DOMINION FOREST RESERVES AND PARKS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 56, to amend Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the usual bill that we introduce every year for the withdrawal from the forest reserves, after examination by our officers, of lands that are considered fit for agricultural purposes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 1.	What is the number of vessels in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine employed in trade between Canada and Australia, and between Canada and New Zealand?
2.	What was the loss, if any, in operation of these vessels during each of the fiscal years 1927 and 1928?
3.	What is the rate per hundred pounds on butter between Auckland and Halifax, and between Auckland and Vancouver?
4.	What quantity of butter was carried between these ports in Canadian vessels during the years 1927 and 1928?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Australia, 7; New Zealand, 5.
2.	As the publication of operating surplus or deficit on individual vessels or on particular services would be information of advantage to competing lines, it is not in the interests of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine to bring down this information.
3.	Auckland to Halifax, 4 shillings per box of 56 pounds net. Auckland to Vancouver- no service provided.
4.	By Canadian Government Merchant Marine: 1927, Auckland to Halifax, 12,520 boxes of 56 pounds, or 313 gross tons; 1928, none. As to other Canadian vessels-no information.



BANKRUPTCY ACT

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Speaker, I
move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that in the enforcement of the Bankruptcy Act with regard to the farming classes, the assignees have been responsible at times for raising the costs to such a high figure that the mortgagee, for an amount equal to fifty per cent of the value of the property, was forced to lose part of his claim?
2.	If so, will any measures be taken so as to determine a fixed amount for fees and costs?

Questions


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



MARKING OF BUTTER

Mr. ADSHEAD:: Is it the intention of the government to institute regulations that will require packages containing butter to be marked with the name of the country in which the butter was made?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Matter receiving consideration of the government.



INDIAN RESERVES-ORIENTALS

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What acreage of Indian lands and reserves, if any, are leased to Orientals?
2.	Where are the lands situated?
3.	What are the names of the tenants?
4.	What is the duration of the tenancies?
5.	What are the amounts of the rents in each case ?
6.	What is the land used for?


Charles A. Stewart: 

IMPORTS-BEEF, MUTTON, LAMB

Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	What companies or individuals imported into Canada in the years 1929 and 1930: (a) beef; (b) mutton; (c) lamb?
2.	What was the country of origin of each shipment or cargo?
3.	To what companies or individual dealers were such imports sold by the importers?
4.	What vessels brought overseas shipments of these commodities to Canada?
5.	Through what ports were importations entered?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	It is contrary to the practice of the Department of National Revenue to disclose information respecting the private business of any person or concern.
Questions

2.	No information. Importations received
from the following countries: Item-Beef, fresh, chilled or frozen. Country-Great Britain, United States, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand.	Item-Mutton and lamb, fresh,
chilled or frozen. Country-Great Britain, United States, Australia, New Zealand.
3.	No information.
4.	No records are kept of the names of the vessels transporting goods to Canada from other countries.
5.	Beef, fresh, chilled or frozen: St. Andrews, N.B., St. John, N.B., Halifax, St. Armand, Montreal, Quebec, Amherstburg, Niagara Falls, Bridgeburg, Gananoque, Hamilton, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor, Ont., Emerson, Moose Jaw, Grand Forks, Vanco"ver, White Horse.
Mutton and lamb, fresh, chilled or frozen: Halifax, Hull, Montreal, Amherstburg, Bridgeburg, Gananoque, Toronto, Windsor, Ont., Emerson, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Cranbrook, Grand Forks, Nelson, New Westminster, Penticton, Vancouver, Victoria.



BANFF NATIONAL PARK EXPENDITURES

Mr. COOTE:: How much was expended by the government in each of the last three years in the Banff National park on: (a) construction of roads; (b) maintenance and repairs to roads; (c) administration; (d) all other expenditures?


Charles A. Stewart: (a)	Construction of roads
1927- 28	 Nil
1928-	29	$	8,884	051929-	30	
1,911	95(b)	Maintenance and repairs to	roads1927-	28	$	54,824	561928-	29	
74,387	971929-	30	
85,870	25(c)	Administration1927-	28	$	41,435	371928-	29	
50,461	371929-	30	
52,285	00(d)	All other expenditures1927- 28	$ 206,014 431928-	29	
194,420	601929-	30	
232,395	21



ISLE AUX GRTJES MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Has the contract for the mail between Isle aux Grues and Montmagny been definitely awarded ?
2.	If so, was said contract awarded to the lowest tenderer?
3.	What was the amount of the lowest tender ?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded?
5.	What is the contract price?
6.	When does the said contract expire?
[Mr. Kuler.l


Mr. VENIOT:: 1,	2, and 4.-
Application was made early in 1927, on behalf of the contractor for an increase in pay which the department could not grant without inviting public tenders. Tenders were therefore invited and were due at department April 29, 1927.
The contract in question did not expire until June 30, 1928, and the contractor agreed to continue until its expiration, therefore no action was taken on tenders received.
In view of the fact that the present contractor has rendered good service and considering the difficulties connected with the operation of this service, which might be increased under a new and inexperienced person, the department authorized a renewal for a further term.
3.	$595 per annum.
5.	$700 per annum.
6.	June 30, 1932.



NATURAL RESOURCES-CIVIL SERVANTS AFFECTED BY TRANSFERS

Mr. LADNER:: 1.	How many employees of the government, and in which departments, are affected as far as their permanent employment is concerned:
(a)	by the transfer from the Dominion of Canada of the natural resources of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to those provinces;
(b)	by the transfer from the Dominion of Canada of the railway belt and Peace River block in British Columbia to that province?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to retain in its service those employees: (a) whose positions are abolished by such transfer; (b) whose positions are partly affected by such transfer ?
3.	Is the government making any provision with respect to the employees wrho may be affected by the transfer?
4.	If so. what is the nature of such provision?
5.	Is it the intention of the government: (a) to continue its forest and technical research work; (b) to continue the work of the forest products laboratories?


Charles A. Stewart: 1 to 5. Under consideration.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-DEFICIT

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	What is the estimated total revenue of the Post Office Department for the last fiscal year?
2.	What is the estimated total expenditure of the Post Office Department for the last fiscal year?
3.	What is the estimated deficit of the Post Office Department for the last fiscal year?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Estimated net revenue, $33,100,000.
2.	Estimated expenditure, $35,400,000.
3.	Estimated deficit, $2,300,000.

Immigration Advertisements



AIRWAY MAIL CONTRACTS

Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: 1.	How many contracts were awarded by the Post Office Department for airway mail?
2.	Who are the contractors?
3.	Are contracts awarded by mileage?
4.	If so, at what rate?
5.	Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to award other contracts?


Peter John Veniot: This question has been
answered by a return laid on the table. It should be withdrawn.


John Frederick Johnston: Dropped. UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS



INDIAN RESERVES-BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. FRASER:: For a return showing, with respect to British Columbia:
1.	The number of Indian reserves.
2.	The total acreage of Indian reserves.
3.	The number of surveyed Indian reserves.
4.	The total acreage of surveyed Indian reserves.
5.	The number of unsurveyed Indian reserves.
6.	The total acreage of unsurveyed Indian reserves.
7.	The number of Indian reserves surveyed in each year since 1925, giving the location, name of surveyor and acreage surveyed.
8.	The total acreage of Indian reserve lands in 1927, 1928 and 1929.
9.	The number of applications made for further reserves since 1925.
10.	The number and acreage of Indian reserves granted by the British Columbia government since 1925, with location of same.
11.	The number of applications pending with the British Columbia government for further Indian reserves, giving the acreage applied for and location of each.



DEBOLT, ALBERTA-POSTMASTER

Mr. KENNEDY:: For a copy of all notices advertising for applications for positions in the civil service of Canada, sent by the Civil Service Commission to the postmaster at Debolt, in the province of Alberta, for posting in the post office at Debolt, during the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930.



BEAUHARNOIS POWER

Edward Joseph Garland: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other correspondence and documents, passing between any department of the government and the Beauharnois Power Corporation, Limited.



BEAUHARNOIS LIGHT, HEAT AND POWER

Edward Joseph Garland: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other correspondence and documents, passing between any department of the government and the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company.



LEAGUE OF NATIONS-TARIFF TRUCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Bealey Adshead: I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The latest empire parliamentary report states that at the Tariff Truce conference the dominions were entirely unrepresented. I would like to ask the Prime Minister why Canada was not represented.


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I regret I did not hear the question; if my hon. friend would let it stand I shall endeavour to answer it at the earliest opportunity.



IMMIGRATION ADVERTISEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. WELLINGTON HAY (North Perth):: The Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) is in his place, and I would like to direct his attention to two advertisements appearing in The Canadian Gazette, London and Montreal, Thursday, March 20, 1930:
Wanted in Canada, experienced farm families; five hundred British families with farm experience. Assured places on Canadian farms in well settled districts. Wages and houses.
And further:
Single men. farm situations vacant-until filled-for 2,000 able-bodied single men. Wages, with bed and board.
That is an advertisement by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Then, on the back of the same periodical is an article sponsored by the Canadian National Railways' Colonization Service. It says:
The Canadian National Railways' Colonization Service advises and assists settlers before they leave Great Britain, meets them on arrival in Canada and places them in farm employment. It also locates farms for those in a position to begin farming for themselves and helps them to make a start.
May I ask for a statement from the minister in reference to these quotations, after the general discussion we had in the house during last session.


Charles A. Stewart: In
1314	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
regard to the remarks of my hon. friend, I may say that the Canadian Pacific Railway have a few families they are placing upon their own lands; I cannot tell you the exact number. They are recruiting in Great Britain. Both the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways have been requested long ago to discontinue that type of advertising. We are watching the arrivals of immigrants brought in by the railway companies. It is needless for me to say that at the expiration of the railway agreement it will be stopped immediately.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does not the hon. minister think that type of advertising should be stopped now?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, it should be. We have asked the railway companies to discontinue altogether that type of advertising.


Mr. HANSON:: I would like to ask the minister, as a result of his remark, if immigration is at a standstill in this country.


Charles A. Stewart: No, it is not entirely at a standstill. The agreements that were entered into between the British government and the railway companies are being carried out in a very limited manner, for example, there are a few British trainees coming in, but nothing like the number the agreement calls for. Less than 20 per cent of the number provided for in the agreement will arrive in Canada this year.



COAL-FREIGHT RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Gibson Coote: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) if he intends to make an announcement in regard to the application of coal operators of Alberta and eastern British Columbia for the suspension of freight rates on bituminous coal shipped from those areas to Manitoba.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not yet been able to get the matter before the government for their consideration.



SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF ME. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Heaps.
Charles A. Stewart: 
George Gibson Coote: Would the minister mind
telling us whether those figures include all the men employed in industry in Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: No; it is
impossible to get a record of all the industries in Canada. These figures refer to industries employing fifteen men or more, and any computation of this character of necessity must be brought in>
its application. At any rate, we have improved the employment situation, although I do not mean to argue that we have had and will not continue to have unemployment during the winter season.
We have a very peculiar situation in Canada which does not exist to the same extent in the country to our south. There they have not a cessation of all, or at least a great many, of the agencies of employment, as is the case in Canada. Perhaps I might enumerate some of the difficulties we have to face. Let us consider agriculture:	I will venture the
assertion, which I think cannot be contradicted, that at least three-quarters of the men employed upon the farms of Canada will be out of work for three months during the year. Consider the shipping fleets on the great lakes, and our fishermen on inland waters; every one of these men will be out of employment during the winter months, except for a very small number who may continue
fishing through the ice. All the sailors in Canadian bottoms are out of employment for at least three months during the year. In building construction from one end of Canada to the other the same thing applies, and a great many of the employees of the railway systems are affected by this situation also. All maintenance of way men; all those men working on improvements to road beds and other men doing similar work, whose numbers are very large during the summer season, are thrown out of employment for at least three months during the winter. So I think it must be agreed that these large employment agencies throughout Canada must of necessity throw men out of employment during three months of the winter, because of our dlimatic conditions.
Let me repeat that this condition always has prevailed in Canada and I doubt if it can be changed to any considerable extent. The question has occasioned considerable thought by all men who are engaged in the problem of supplying employment to those who desire to work in this country. I do not think any hon. gentleman will deny that while we are perhaps the most favourably situated country in the world with respect to employment, we have the handicap of a seasonal condition of this character, and it is worthy of note that the situation is not worse than it is at the present time. In the United States and Australia, two countries with which we can reasonably make comparison, the situation is very much worse and, as I have pointed out, both countries adopted the remedy suggested by our hon. friends opposite in the hope of improving their economic conditions and thereby improving their labour conditions.
I do not know that I need go very much further into the question of why we happen to have seasonal unemployment in Canada. I am not able to give the number of men who will be unemployed during the season I have mentioned, but I do not think that is material; I think every one must realize that during that three month period a very large number of the men engaged in the industries I have mentioned will be out of employment.
In 1923 we had a conference at which we discussed this very question, and at that conference some suggestions were made which have been adopted by this government. One suggestion was that the government of Canada should, so far as it could conveniently be done, extend its building construction programs into the winter season. I am going to make the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that that be done to a greater degree, but before I do so may I deal with the matter of immigration.
1316	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
I happen to be for the moment the acting minister of that department, and have to do with immigration matters. It has been suggested by hon. gentlemen opposite that the federal government should step into the field of provincial activity and assist in dealing with unemployment because it has brought into this country during the past few years immigrants from the various countries of the world which has added to the difficulty we find ourselves in during the winter seasons. There is no doubt that in any given community the stranger will be the first to suffer from unemployment. He is the first man to be out of work because he does not know conditions; he is not acquainted with the avenues through which he may seek employment and for that reason he is very liable to be found in reasonably sized numbers in any body of unemployed. After he is established and becomes a citizen he is in a better position to provide for himself during the winter season. I do not think it should be said that because of these conditions no one should be allowed into a country like Canada with its sparse population, or that we should say to the world, as some of our sister dominions have said, that we cannot accommodate any more people within our midst. I think that would be going a considerable distance, but I do believe that we should reduce immigration to the minimum in order to be able to face our present and future difficulties.


Edward Joseph Garland: What would that minimum be?


Charles A. Stewart: That is a
very difficult question to answer. If my hon. friend were minister of immigration, having to deal with individual cases where good reasons are given for the entry of friends and relatives of people already in Canada, people who are comfortably off and in a position to take care of their friends, and who are prepared to take care of them so that they would not drift into the ranks of the unemployed, I-


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister is not contending that there has been any drastic opposition to that class of immigration?


Charles A. Stewart: I am simply stating my position to my hon. friend. The doors cannot be closed absolutely as there is that class of immigration to be considered. A considerable number of immigrants would come within that class, and I for one believe that it is right and proper that they be admitted. I shall continue to admit them until we

have an arrangement with the provinces which I hope will be brought about, whereby they will undertake the responsibility of saying who shall and who shall not come into their midst.


Edward Joseph Garland: What about the entry of those outside of relatives and friends?


Charles A. Stewart: The answer I made the other day to a question raised during the orders of the day still stands. We have an arrangement for the admission of 1,100 or 1,200 trainees, but the greatest difficulty is being experienced in placing even one half of that number, and we are asking that it be reduced to the very minimum. We are also insisting that they be placed where they will not take the place of labour which could be supplied by Canada itself, and they are all being placed on farms.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What about the 8,000 Europeans coming into Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
give a definite answer to my hon. friend except to say that this agreement was made a year ago by my predecessor, when the present situation was not anticipated. The agreement, so far as the bringing in of people is concerned, will expire on May 31. Where people in this country decide to bring friends or relatives from central Europe and where they are in an economic position to take care of such immigrants, I permit them to come in.


Mr. BENNETT:: Regardless of the financial position of the immigrant?


Charles A. Stewart: In every
case they have some financial backing themselves.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does the department
have certain knowledge as to where those people will go after they enter the country?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, they are all going on farms. We have been endeavouring to make an arrangement with the provinces whereby they will accept the responsibility of stating to us the number and the nationality of immigrants which they can absorb into their communities. As far as the federal government is concerned, we are putting no bar in the way of people coming from the old land or from the preferred northern countries provided they are physically and mentally fit, are able to pay their own passage and have sufficient money to maintain themselves for a reasonable time after arrival in this country. I do not believe that the provinces will put any bar in the way of immigra-

Unemployment-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
tion of that character. The deputy minister of the department has visited practically all the provinces of Canada, as a matter of fact he is to-day interviewing the Premier of Nova Scotia. He will then have completed interviews with all the provinces, which so far have expressed a willingness to accept the responsibility provided the federal government will undertake to carry on recruiting, to deport when necessary, and to provide the machinery for the securing of such immigrants as are desired by the different provinces. The provinces, on their part, will give us the number and classes of people which they can absorb.
Largely at the request of the provinces, a conference was arranged to discuss this matter. It is to be held early in June so that arrangements may be completed in ample time for application to next year's immigration. I hope that the charge will not be laid at our door that we are contributing to the difficulties of any given province by the bringing in of immigrants. It seems to me that this arrangement is the logical, reasonable and sound thing to do, having in mind that the federal government will no longer have control of the lands and the natural resouces of the western provinces.
I am not unmindful of the fact that the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Heaps) calls for immediate action with regard to unemployment. It is unnecessary for me to reiterate the stand of the government which was given to the house by the Prime Minister, and which was stated last fall by the government, that this government stands ready to assist any province which finds itself in a position where it is unable to cope with the situation. No such request has been made to this government, and may I say that I agree most heartily with the statement of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who stood in his place the other day and stated most emphatically that he realized that while the initial responsibility rested upon the municipalities and the secondary responsibility was upon the provincial governments, he felt that the federal government could not as well escape responsibility. Upon that occasion he appealed to the federal government to come to the rescue of the poor unemployed. I hate to call such a suggestion absurd, but no one expected the federal government to hand its moneys over to the provincial government in order that the latter might spend them. I am just as much interested as any other hon. member in the welfare of any individual who is out of employment, but no one has so far suggested that the municipalities and the provincial governments are not taking care of the situation, nor have the provincial governments so far stated that owing to their inability, people are not receiving needed assistance.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What does the minister mean by "inability"? Where is the limit?


Charles A. Stewart: That is a matter for the provincial governments themselves to decide. The federal government stands in exactly the same position as it did last fall; we believe with the hon. member for South Wellington that the matter is a municipal responsibility. If it is too great for the municipalities, then the province must come to the rescue. If it becomes too great for the province, under existing conditions they appeal to the federal government, and in the past when the matter was dealt with in this way, it was dealt with on the basis of one-third from the municipality, one^third from the province, and one-third from the federal government.


Mr. MANION:: In view of the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day, what would be the use of any province under a Conservative government appealing to this government?


Charles A. Stewart: All I can say to my hon. friend is that he will have to judge us by our past.


Robert James Manion: Not by your statements.


Mr. SHORT:: The country will decide.


Charles A. Stewart: We are quite willing to let the country decide; we will take our chances with the country. May I say to my hon. friend from Fort William: in the past this government, in connection with old age pensions, farm loans-and these are in the very immediate past-adopted a policy of cooperation with the provincial governments. As regards unemployment, if we are to hand money of the taxpayers of Canada over to the provinces, surely we have a right to make some inquiries as to its disposition.


Robert James Manion: Or as to their politics.


Charles A. Stewart: I say nothing about their politics.


Robert James Manion: The Prime Minister said that.


Charles A. Stewart: Generally
speaking, I think it is a safe and sane policy for any government to pursue to spend under their own direction the money they collect from the taxpayers. No one can quarrel with that, and I think it is a safe and sound proposition. That has been the position of
1318	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
the government in the past and I have no doubt it will be the position of the government in the future.
Having dealt with the question of immigration, I want to suggest what I think would assist very materially in relieving the seasonal unemployment which we have for at least, three months of the year. During the winter season the government has carried on in almost every large city of Canada public works under its control, in this way giving employment to men who would otherwise have been out of work. We followed out the policy suggested in the conference of 1923. I should like to see that enlarged. I believe it is possible under modern conditions to carry on in almost every part of Canada building construction during the winter months with very little added cost. I would suggest that the provinces, the municipalities and the railway companies who are large employers of labour, could very well decide that one-half of the money expended in building construction should be expended during the three months that I have mentioned, the off season.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the federal government be prepared to pay a share of the additional cost of winter construction?


Charles A. Stewart: We have to bear the responsibility of our own winter construction. Why should my hon. friend ask the federal government to assume one-third of the cost of construction of a public building for a province which is doing exactly the same thing as the federal government is doing in a country like Canada? I do not follow his argument.


Edward Joseph Garland: Only because the minister suggests it is their policy to ask the provinces to carry on winter construction.


Charles A. Stewart: I am suggesting this merely as a remedy. If someone does not suggest a remedy, no remedy will be forthcoming. The same thing may apply to municipalities. Is there any reason why municipalities should not construct their sewer works in the winter time? We have all seen them doing this. In Ottawa we have had no difficulty in employing men all winter in building a cement wall along the Rideau canal, which is outside work. We have done this every winter for the past four or five years, giving employment to 100 or 125 men during the cold weather. If it is costing a little more money, the federal government has to pay the bill. Very much more could be done in the way of winter employment if the municipali-

ties, the provincial governments and particularly the two great railway systems were to extend their building programs. A large proportion of the outside construction of the Confederation building was carried on during the winter, but I do not believe it has cost the contractor very much more because of that. That kind of thing can be applied all over Canada and it will help a great deal toward absorbing the unemployed in these various activities.
The National railways were requested to give employment to many men who otherwise would have been discharged this winter, and I hope it has not cost the National railways any considerable amount of money to carry out that policy. These men were largely out of employment because our wheat crop did not move and a large proportion of that crop has still to move. The government requested the National railways not to discharge those men but to keep them on during the winter season, and this has helped very materially to relieve the unemployment situation.
If I can speak quite apart from my ministerial responsibilities, I would respectfully suggest, if I may put it in that way, that the municipalities and the provincial governments might go so far, if it were necessary, as to enact legislation so as to carry out the program I have outlined. If this were done it would mean much to the country. A more adequate system of registration will have to be inaugurated and that is one of the matters I want to bring before the conference with respect to immigration. In this way, if men who have settled in any given municipality or any particular part of the country, move from that locality into a city, as they frequently do from farms, railways and elsewhere, it will be possible to fix the responsibility of the municipality from which they come. Something of that kind would help materially to prevent some of the cities from being made the Mecca of many of our unemployed who do not rightfully belong in them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This year in my
city of Winnipeg hundreds of men were discharged from the Canadian Pacific who had to be maintained by the city. The city went so far as to send a bill to the Canadian Pacific. Is there any reason why the federal government could not legislate so that the railways would have to take care of their own employees during those three or four months?


Charles A. Stewart: I was coming to that very point. I know how impossible it is to say to a farmer, for example:	You
must do something for the men you dis-

Unemployment-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
charge in the fall and do not need until next spring. Perhaps it is a little difficult to say to the railroads and other large employers of labour: You must provide continuous employment for your workers. I think I am safe in saying that generally in our merchant marine in Canada we hear very little about unemployment, and yet the sailors who make up that splendid body of men must be out of employment for four months every year. It is possible that the wages they receive in the summer months carry them through the winter season. I am not familiar enough with the circumstances to know, but I do know that we hear very little from them, and I see no reason why the same conditions should not apply on the railways and with other large employers of labour, who have of necessity to employ a larger number of men during the summer than during the winter season.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would not that
require legislation?


Charles A. Stewart: I am unable to answer my hon. friend with respect to that. I am not attempting to cure the unemployment situation but am suggesting attacking it first where it is most acute, with our municipalities and within the provincial arena, and of course, as it applies to the railway companies. So far as we are aware, no serious situation exists in eastern Canada. The serious situation, if it can be called such, exists from here westward. While it may be said that the situation is a little more acute just now than in other years, both in the United States and Canada, the fact remains that ever}' year in both countries there is a considerable degree of unemployment during the off-season, and it is to cover the off-season period that I am offering these suggestions to the house.
As I say, we will have a conference on immigration, which is one of the things that it is claimed has some effect on unemployment, and I see no reason why this question should not be discussed at that conference. It might be well to bring together the presidents of the two railway companies and other large employers of labour, who are interested in this question as we are interested, and are desirous of alleviating what is a more or less serious situation for some of those who are unemployed every winter. The provinces will also be represented at that conference. The municipalities largely will not. I do not claim that it is the responsibility of the federal government, but we wish to be helpful as far as we can in this matter, as in other matters, and to have the question discussed, to see how far we can go in proposing schemes that will
be effective in reducing unemployment in this country, having regard particularly to the industries that are employing a large number of workers, some of whom find themselves out of employment during the three months I have mentioned.
That is all that I have to contribute to the debate, Mr. Speaker. I feel that it has wandered very far afield. I have been sitting here listening for some practical suggestions that would cure unemployment, but so far very little has been said along that line. I offer these suggestions, not as something entirely new, but as going further perhaps than has ever been proposed before in connection with making it obligatory that work that can be performed during the winter seasons shall be done then. May I say, in conclusion, that if the debate continues, I do hope that hon. members who speak will remember that this is not a political question, and that they will not speak with the hope of getting some political kudos out of it, but will rather confine themselves to what they believe will be practical remedies for a situation that we shall find existent in this country for three months every year.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Who does the minister
think should bear the expense of maintaining the deportees while they are awaiting deportation? Secondly, when did the government insert the words, "Unable to bear the cost"? As it was before, it said that when an emergent condition exists the Dominion government would step in. The wording now makes it very different.


Charles A. Stewart: I confess
that I do not see very much difference. There may be an emergent condition and the provinces may be able to take care of it, but when a province admits that it is unable to take care of it, it is apparent that it is a very emergent situation.
With respect to deportees, the moment that we are notified and take action for the deportation of an individual, we pay the expenses, and in some cases we have paid them where it would appear that there may have been some laxity on our part in dealing with the matter.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: In these deportation
cases, we do not get one cent until the men leave the station. We have to maintain them up till then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question I desire to ask the minister is this:	What legislative
body would have the authority to compel construction to be carried on during the winter?

Unemployment-Mr. Ernst


Charles A. Stewart: It would
only be provincial in character, and anything effective in that connection would have to be enacted by the province.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Could the province possibly enact legislation that would affect control of the railroads?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
say that. The provincial authorities would have complete control over the operations in their own province other than perhaps in connection with the railways, which are a national undertaking and have a dominion charter, but anything dealing with the railways would have to be enacted by the federal government.


Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, there was one remark made by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) with which I can agree, and that was one of his concluding remarks that this debate has wandered far afield. Having read the amendment, which reads that in the opinion of this house the government should take immediate action to deal with the question of unemployment, the minister himself proceeded to wander into a dissertation on immigration and fiscal policies. In so far as he contributed anything to the question, his contribution I think may be classified under three heads. First, there was the admission that we have an unemployment problem with us, seasonal unemployment permanently. Second, that the problem is primarily a provincial and a municipal one. The third part of his speech was very much the same as the Prime Minister's, and consisted in giving good advice. The Prime Minister himself took the same stand as the minister, that the question is primarily a provincial one, and he sought to justify his position by reference to the British North America Act. I feel that issue can well be taken with the Prime Minister in that statement. He quoted section 92 of the British North America Act, which gives legislative powers to the various provincial governments, but he neglected to read to the house section 91 of the same act. In order to understand the reference in section 92, it is essential, I feel, that section 91 should be read to the house in so far as it appertains:	It reads:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces;
Then it goes on to enumerate the specific powers given to the Dominion government.

But the essential point to remember is this, that the powers of the legislatures of the provinces are circumscribed, they are tied hard and fast by definite statements contained in section 92. Any power which is not delegated to the provincial legislatures belongs to the federal legislature; in other words what we call the residuum of power resides in this parliament, and not in the legislatures of the various provinces.
Now, under what subsection of section 92 did the Prime Minister seek to justify his position that the question was primarily a provincial one? Taking them in turn, the first of these subsections he relied on was No. 7:
The establishment, maintenance, and management of hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals.
In other words, under that subsection, he is going to bring the question of unemployment within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures; that is, he classes unemployment with charitable institutions, because that is all that subsection deals with. He treats unemployment essentially as a matter of charity, whereas in the later part of his speech he refers to Industry and Humanity, the book written by himself, where he places unemployment upon an altogether different plane. He is not consistent in the two parts of his speech. Either he is correct in Industry and Humanity and incorrect in his speech; or he is incorrect in Industry and Humanity and correct in his speech. I submit that by no stretch of the imagination can the problem of unemployment, strictly construed, be brought within the purview of the provincial legislatures under the provisions of subsection 7 of section 92 of the British North America Act.
Let us take the next subsection which he invoked, No. 8:
Municipal institutions in the province.
The Prime Minister well knows that that subsection means that the provincial legislatures are the bodies which are empowered to create institutions of municipal government; they pass what are known as municipal acts conferring powers on municipal institutions. When he argues that because unemployment is primarily a municipal matter, and that as the municipality receives its powers from the provincial government, it is therefore a provincial matter, he begs the question altogether. He is simply saying it is a municipal question; the province gives the municipality power; therefore it is not a

Unemployment-Mr. Ernst
federal question. The subsection has not the slightest bearing on the question of unemployment from a legal standpoint.
Let us go on to the next subsection that he relies on:
13. Property and civil rights in the province.
He proceeds to state that unemployment is a matter of contract between the employer and the employees, and that a contract is a matter of property and civil rights. But surely, sir, unemployment is the very negation of contract, it is the very opposite of property and civil rights. There is no contract. Consequently it cannot for one moment come within the classification of property and civil rights.
Let us take the last subsection that he quoted to justify his position from a legal standpoint:
16. Generally, all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put this proposition before the Prime Minister. Let us suppose for one moment that the government of this country reduces the duty on coal and so allows it to come in from the United States and Russia, and as a result 5,000 miners in the island of Cape Breton are put out of employment. Is that purely a local matter? Is it a matter merely of local concern? True, primarily the locality would be concerned in seeing that those men are kept from starvation. But who is responsible? Does not the responsibility rest where the cause is produced? Is not that the answer to the whole question of unemployment? Unemployment primarily means that there is some breakdown-perhaps not a breakdown, but that the economic structure of the country is not functioning in a balanced manner. The economic structure of the country is wholly under the control of this parliament. Subsection 2 of section 91 of the British North America Act enumerates the regulation of trade and commerce as one of the powers of this parliament. That regulation belongs entirely to the federal and not to the provincial authorities; the latter have no right whatever to interfere in it.
Let us assume, to carry my argument a step further, that the Dominion enacted regulations respecting trade and commerce which threw men out of employment in British Columbia or in some other province. Is not the action taken by the Dominion parliament the cause of that unemployment? If so, why should responsibility rest on the immediate localities where the unemployment occurs, which locality had nothing whatever to do in throwing those men out of work? Suppose 2419-84
the Prime Minister in his wisdom decided there should be some readjustment of the economic structure and the readjustment meant prosperity in some parts of the country but worked a hardship in others. Where there was hardship-where there was unemployment 

would it not be the responsibility of the federal authorities to take care of that unemployment? And would the Prime Minister say it was a vicious principle to devote money which was taken from the prosperous to help out the needy in those localities adversely affected?
When you analyze the situation, Mr. Speaker, you must come to the conclusion that the problem is primarily federal. I doubt very much whether the provinces could pass legislation respecting unemployment which would be held by the courts of this country to be intra vires. Surely it is not within the sphere of the provinces under the British North America Act. The lead should come from this government. They may use the machinery of the municipalities, but the lead must be given by the Dominion. Take this illustration. Last week I was in the city of Brantford. They have there a number of unemployed people. Those people were brought out here by the instrumentality of the government under what is known as the assisted passage scheme. They were to be placed on farms, but instead they were placed on the outskirts of the city, and to-day they are getting their bread and butter from the city authorities. Whose is the responsibility in that case? Does it belong to the local authorities, or does not the responsibility morally rest upon the Dominion government? I submit, sir, that when you view the whole situation by and large you must come to the conclusion that the problem is a federal one, and the country must look to the federal authorities for a solution of the problem, whatever that solution may be.
Now, what arguments did the Prime Minister use in addition to the argument of unemployment being a provincial matter? His next argument was that we were doing a disservice to this country in mentioning the fact that there was serious unemployment in Canada to-day. He argued, as did the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who has just taken his seat, that there was no serious unemployment, that the unemployment was merely seasonal. Any person who travels across Canada to-day cannot come to the conclusion that unemployment is merely normal, for there is unemployment in every province in some degree, in some provinces worse than in others, and it certainly is not the usual

Unemployment-Mr. Ernst

seasonal unemployment such as we have had during the last three or four winters. The Prime Minister says we are doing a disservice to the country in mentioning the fact. Why? Because he said, if we mention it, it means that foreign capital will not come in here, and consequently to that extent we shall not be able to cure the situation. He expects us apparently to say that the country is prosperous, that there is no unemployment, no matter what may be the actual conditions. What would happen if that same principle were carried into private life? If I went to the Prime Minister and induced him to put capital in my business on the strength of my statement that it was in a flourishing state, while really it was not, and he lost his capital, I venture to say he would hale me into court on a charge of obtaining money by false pretenses. And, sir, applying the same moral principles to the conduct of the nation's affairs, then it behooves us to tell people who contemplate investing their capital here what are the actual conditions respecting unemployment. If we do not do that we are departing a long way from the high moral principles the Prime Minister enunciated a few weeks ago.
In addition, what did the Prime Minister say? The remainder of his speech consisted in quotations from Industry and Humanity, and in giving advice to the provincial governments and to various corporations. In effect, it consisted in this: "We stand ready to give you the benefit of our advice when you ask for it; we will not help you or give a cent to any Tory government, but we will give our advice." I suppose he would give the provinces a copy of his book, if they asked for it. That was the purport of the speech made by the Prime Minister in reference to this question. No doubt he will say 1 have misinterpreted it, but we know the right hon. gentleman is very often misinterpreted. In fact, he lays himself open to misinterpretation with surprising frequency. For instance, some few years ago he had occasion to make a statement about his activities in connection with labour during a period of his life. He referred to that period in the remarks he made in his speech of Thursday last when he was dealing with his book called Industry and Humanity. He stated, very heatedly, that he had never resided in the United States. No doubt the right hon. gentleman is legally correct, but may I point out that in respect to these matters he deliberately lays himself open to misinterpretation. I have in my hand a copy of Hansard for the year 1920, and I find that in that year the right hon. gentleman made a statement giving his credentials
fMr. C. A. Stewart.]
which he placed upon Hansard. The statement contains his credentials for certain years of his life, and in connection with them we note two things. The first is that there are some six credentials; all were obtained from persons resident in the United States, and the second is that while he was supposed to be employed at mitigating or helping the cause of labour, every single one of those credentials is from an official of some great corporation in the United States. It is not an accident, because it is quite obvious the hon. gentleman solicited those credentials. He admits that in one case he wrote a circular letter to obtain them. If he circularized labour, which he was supposed to have assisted, either labour made no representations or the Prime Minister did not place them on Hansard.
May I draw the attention of the house to these credentials and testimonials. There are six of them, and the first appears on page 1410 of Hansard, in the year 1920. It is a letter from J. F. Welborn, the president of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, Denver, Colorado, and is dated December 20, 1919.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Read the letter.


William Gordon Ernst: The letter deals with the services rendered by the right hon. gentleman to that corporation. I have only forty minutes in which to make my speech, but I shall give the page number of Hansard so that any hon. member may read it if he so desires.
The next letter is from Mr. J. W. Powell, the vice-president of the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. This letter is dated September 22, 1919.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Read that letter.


William Gordon Ernst: That letter appears on page 1412. The next testimonial the right hon. gentleman produced is from E. G. Grace, the president of the Bethlehem Steel Company, South Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and it is dated September 26, 1919


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Read that letter.


William Gordon Ernst: My right hon. friend can refresh his memory by looking at them tonight, if he so desires.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know what is in them.


William Gordon Ernst: The next credential is from
Richard H. Rice, acting manager of the General Electric Company, at West Lynn, Massachusetts. The letter is dated September 29, 1919.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask my hon. friend to read that letter.

Unemployment-Mr. Ernst


William Gordon Ernst: The next letter is from
W. L. Petrikin, the president of the Great Western Sugar Company, Denver, Colorado.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to draw the attention of the house to the fact that it is a rule in debate that an hon. member should not refer to a communication unless he is prepared to read it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is in Hansard.


William Gordon Ernst: They are already on the
pages of Hansard and are available for hon. members in this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. members are content not to have them read, well and good.


William Gordon Ernst: If I could obtain an extension of time I would be glad to read them, but I have only forty minutes, and would not have sufficient time. The next letter is one that my hon. friend must be proud of. It is from R. W. Stewart, the gentleman who apparently was ousted from the Standard Oil Company of Indiana by Mr. Rockefeller.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps the
hon. member would read that letter.


William Gordon Ernst: It is from one of the officials of a great corporation, and tells of the wonderful services the Prime Minister rendered labour. The letter is dated October 7, 1919. My object in drawing these matters to the attention of the house is to point out that the right hon. gentleman frequently leaves himself open to misinterpretation. Is it not reasonable to infer when we have a statement of credentials covering the activities of the Prime Minister for a period of four years, and not containing a single credential from this country, that he had not been in this country? We will have to accept the statement of the right hon. gentleman when he says he was a resident of Canada during all that time. I am merely pointing out that he leaves himself open to misinterpretation in that, as in other respects. He leaves himself open to further misinterpretation when he solicits testimonials and receives none from labour, whom he purports to have helped.
I have dealt with the reasons given by the Prime Minister as to why he could not support the amendment before the house.
We shall now turn to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), and find his position on the subject. The Minister of Labour addressed this house for three hours in an attempt to tell us that there was unemployment under previous Conservative governments; apart from that he said nothing. True, he made some sneering references to the Hon. Mr. 2419-84$
Ferguson, the premier of Ontario. I must say, however, that so far as his contribution to this debate is concerned, it has amounted to nothing. As has been pointed out in this house, however, he did say something in the city of London. His remarks are reported in the London Advertiser of Saturday, March 15, 1930. He is reported to have made a statement in regard to unemployment insurance. He has informed the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) that he stands behind the report as it appears in the London Advertiser, and I wish to direct again the attention of the minister to the report as it appears in that paper. I ask him if he did or did not make the statement as it is quoted? The first paragraph reads:
The Dominion government is ready to assist the provinces in establishing unemployment insurance for Canada on a contributing basis, announced the Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour in an address to an audience that filled Hyman hall last night. In making this important pronouncement Mr. Heenan said, "As far as I am concerned I will make every effort and the Prime Minister will back me up to see that the labouring man, who is out of work for any period of the year, will have a right to expect and to receive a share of the profits he helped to make.
Did the Minister of Labour make that statement as reported?


Mr. HEENAN:: Yes, I did.


William Gordon Ernst: The hon. minister says he
did, and the result is that we reach a very unfortunate position for the Minister of Labour in view of the fact that the Prime Minister took a diametrically different stand. Later on in the speech of the Minister of Labour we find the word "assist." The Prime Minister has distinctly said in this house that he would not give a five cent piece to any Tory government. I interpret the remarks of the Prime Minister-and I hope I am not misinterpreting them-that he will not give one penny to any of the provinces, unless it is to one of the western provinces. In view of that fact, Mr. Speaker, we have one pronouncement from the Minister of Labour in London, Ontario, and another from the Prime Minister in this house. But worse than that, the Minister of Labour says he has the support of the Prime Minister.


Peter Heenan: May I ask a question.
Are there not more ways of giving assistance than by making donations?


William Gordon Ernst: The only other way I know of is that the Prime Minister might give a copy of his book. I take the word "assist" to mean what it is commonly understood to
Unemployment-Mr. Ernst

mean, and as any audience of labouring men would interpret it, financial assistance. In the speech as reported here the Minister of Labour tells an audience of labouring men in effect that there would be financial assistance. What becomes of cabinet solidarity? We find the Minister of Labour making in the city of London a statement diametrically opposed to that made by the Prime Minister in this house. I will not use the word "misrepresent"; it is a nasty word and I believe it is unparliamentary but, sir, I will say the Minister of Labour deliberately misinterpreted the views of the government on the question for the purpose of getting a few votes in the city of London and elsewhere. Thus we have another illustration of this government forgetting one of the cardinal principles of responsible government, the principle of cabinet solidarity.
This is not the only illustration we have had; if it were the first perhaps it might not cause so much comment. We had the same thing happen with regard to the liquor export bill, with respect to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler). The same cardinal principle was forgotten, and we have the same situation all over Canada with regard to tariffs, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) when he made his address on this subject. For instance, we have our friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar) who, I believe, purports to be an out and out free trader, and we have the Minister of National Revenue who campaigns Ontario as a protectionist. Down in my part of the country some gentlemen belonging to the party opposite are free traders, while some say they stand for "a tariff for revenue." I have not been able to understand what that means, unless it means to import as much as we can in order to get an increased revenue from the tariff. I have never heard a reasonable explanation of that term.
So we have the spectacle of one minister saying one thing in one place and another minister saying another thing in another place, with cardinal principles forgotten and vote-catching on every hand. How long can this country tolerate a spectacle of that kind under our Canadian institutions of government? How long can we have the Minister of Railways preaching free trade in the west while the Minister of National Revenue is a protectionist in Ontario? The result is exactly what you might expect, a species of tariff paralysis. The government cannot move in any direction, no matter how hard it tries; some one is always hanging on to its coat 
tails and pulling in the opposite direction. The government keeps moving simply in a circle, while the needs of industry are forgotten in the needs of political exigency. You get exactly the result you might expect to get. To-day industries here and there-I am not speaking of the farmers but of manufacturing plants-are idle; the Minister of the Interior can find plenty of cases in this province where men are out of employment because goods are being imported from foreign countries. Men are walking the streets and getting their bread from the municipalities, and the Prime Minister says the municipalities should feed them.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the government of this country two things are essential; first, the principle of cabinet solidarity, and second, that a government which talks about its policies shall have some definite policy rather than the policy of helpless drifting.


Mr. W. K. BALDWIN (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, there has been unemployment since time immemorial. The worst I remember was directly after the American civil war, when Ontario and Quebec were invaded by armies of men who were willing to do any kind of manual labour for their bed and board.
I was amused the other evening by the remarks of the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall). He flayed the Minister of Labour to the best of his ability, even accusing him of using bad grammar. While he spoke I thought that if his teachers and professors could have heard him they would have wept for his own inaccuracies and mistakes. The hon. member went on to claim that the Prime Minister was not what he should be, and so on. I want to tell my hon. friend that I happened to be in the United States during the last presidential election, and while I was there I heard some prominent people arguing about magazine interviews with the two candidates. While they were speaking I said, " How would your candidates compare with the Prime Minister of Canada?" For a few moments they stopped their argument, and both said, "We have no such men over here. We had to appeal to the gentleman who is now the Prime Minister of Canada to come to this country at a very strenuous period of its history." They referred to a time when capital and labour were at swords' points throughout the land, and the American government wanted a man who could cope with the situation. Princeton, Harvard and Yale universities were questioned, and each institution gave the name of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. He went to that country and

Unemployment-Mr. Baldwin
saved hundreds of millions of dollars by starting industry working again; strikes were stopped almost entirely and capital and labour declared peace. That was a work worth while.
Then the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said there was an immediate need for this government to vote $500,000,	$1,000,000, $2,000,000 and finally
$3,000,000 for the relief of unemployment. Ever since I came into this house I have been in favour of making all criminals work for their living; I have opposed keeping people in prison in idleness. I would not give any money to ablebodied men who are able to eat their three meals a day. Surely we can find work for them to do somewhere. In the state of Vermont they are providing work in the beautifying of the sides of the highways, the removal of eyesores and obstacles and all that sort of thing. There is plenty of work in this country. I should like to ask the hon. member for South Wellington if he does not agree with me that to give money promiscuously throughout the country would be equal to the dole system in England, which has practically destroyed that country. I would not be guilty of doing such a thing as that. I am sure the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black) and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) would agree with me, if they were in their seats. The thrifty man Who has managed to accumulate some means does not desire to give his money to loafers.
Of course, I would not see a mother or a child suffer for food, but I say that ablebodied men in this country should not be fed at the expense of any government, unless they work. Certainly we can find work somewhere; we could build a trans-Canada highway across Canada, if necessary, but I never would vote for any measure which would grant money to idle able-bodied men. I believe, with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), that men loafing six weeks become hoboes, and men loafing six months in many cases become criminals. I believe that is altogether too true. I think laziness is a habit; after a time an idle person begins to hate work and will not support his family. Even criminals in prisons would work, if I had my way about it. They could do something; they could be taken on the land in the summer and help till the soil. It is a terrible thing to keep these criminals there in idleness, the young and old together, the criminal who has committed a minor offence herded in with the hardened criminal. That is a terrible state of affairs, and I would not allow it nor would I vote any money to be spent in supporting that class of people. There is enough
labour to be performed in this country. If the people who are without labour would work in conjunction with the municipalities and with the provinces, perhaps this thing could be worked out if the promise was given only to assist those rvho woidd work.
Who is to say that the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways and other great corporations are not to get people from foreign countries? The presidents of those great railways have said for years that our railway and canal systems and the other great institutions of this country require at least a population of 15,000,000. When the United States was getting together its great population no immigration barriers were raised. People came to the United States from the utmost parts of the world. They came from many countries wh'ere the return with a thousand dollars would enable them to live in comfort for the remainder of their lives. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company has great tracts of land which were granted to them before they built that railway, and they cannot sell it to Canadian people. Canadians do not want to work upon the land because their sons and daughters have been educated to enjoy the amusements and frivolities of the cities. They must have those amusements even although they have no money; they figure that they can commit some crime to put something into their own pockets, or get into somebody else's pockets. This country cannot be developed without that vigorous class of people from Scandinavia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany. We have some wonderful examples of what those people can do, and settlements can be found in the province of Ontario which demonstrates the thriftiness of that class of people.
Our people seem to have gone money crazy. Most of the girls in the country say openly that they will not marry anyone but a millionaire. If that state of mind continues, the birth rate will be controlled because that class of people do not want to be bothered with children.
The United States allowed people to enter that country without the least restriction. For many years on an average of 1,000,000 people annually arrived at Ellis island. Many of those people arrived in the early part of the year and returned home in the fall to remain ihere during the winter months. But that was possible because transportation by both land and sea was very cheap. People went on the land fifty, sixty and seventy years ago to obtain a living, but to-day their only thoughts seem to be as to how they can

Unemployment-Mr. Baldwin
enrich themselves. They become unhappy and troublesome and do not possess that love of country which would give them the desire to stay on the land and reap the return of an enhanced value. I have met people from the United States who settled on the land forty or fifty years ago and who are now able to rent their farms at such a price per acre as to provide them with world tours, from which they return once a year to collect their rents. They were a fine class of old country gentlemen, who lived quietly and biologically; they kept themselves free from disease and foolishness by sane life on the land. I am told that there are settlements in Ontario and in the northwest of people who have gone to those localities and who have stayed there. I do not know whether or not they built the so-called dug-outs, or whether or not they built pole houses with thatched roofs, but they became thrifty, they own their land and have money with which to buy additional acres. That is the class of people we must get to populate this wonderful and magnificent country. Our boys and girls will not consider a life which requires so much labour and which deprives them of the amusements and frivolities of city life. They want to have automobiles and spend their time running and gadding about the country.
This may not be the time to mention this subject, but I was told by an aviator in Montreal-by the way, I believe in aviation, although I do not care to go up myself at the present time-that out of twenty-eight accidents which occurred last year in Canada, twenty-seven were caused by the man at the controls. I will not mention this terrible accident here in Ottawa, outside of saying that my friend knew that aviator very well. It will be necessary to enact more stringent laws than we have to-day, governing the licensing of air pilots. If we had enough Lindberghs in this country there would be very few accidents, and if I remember rightly, Lindbergh was a Scandinavian. I think his mother came over from Norway or Sweden, and she is now teaching in the state of Michigan. They said Lindbergh was crazy, but he did not prove to be so crazy when he left America to cross that boundless and ice-covered territory for Europe. If Lindbergh were in this city to-day, and had the time I would not hesitate one moment to go up in the air with him. Tests should be made of those men who are to guide these ships of the air. They should live according to all biological rules, and not be excessive in anything. They should not partake of any stimulants, and should be clean livers. But, Mr. Speaker, I

do not suppose that these remarks would apply to the relief of unemployment.
Unemployment is caused largely by the great increase in inventions. Many newly invented machines are doing the work of several people, but there is one class of people who come from the old country, for which there is a great need-domestic servants. In the eastern townships there is a continual waiting list for this class of immigrant, and it is almost impossible to obtain a domestic who will remain a domestic for any great time.
Men cannot be found who do not insist on employment for the full year. Generally Speaking, the farmer can employ only one man and woman for the entire year, although he may need additional help during the summer season. In olden times there were plenty of unmarried men who would remain with the farmer or the lumber man during the slack season for a nominal amount plus his board. But there is no more of that; they say: "If I cannot get the big pay I got when you needed me, I will not work for the small pay when you have not much for me to do." Domestic service is one of the best employments in this country for an uneducated girl, because she gets her board and generally she has as good a room as any member of the family; in fact, she is usually regarded as one of the family. If she is getting $5 or S6 a week, she does, not realize that her room may be worth 85 or $6 a week and surely her board is worth as much. If she were to go to a city for employment and secured a job at S15 a week, she would hardly be getting as much as she does as a domestic. But she thinks she does not have as much liberty as the girl in the city. Perhaps not, but by staying on as a domestic and learning what a wife's duties should be she has a much better chance to become a healthy girl and a good wife and mother.
To come back to the unemployment question, it seems to me so silly-because, as I said at the beginning, unemployment has been with us from time immemorial-to raise all this hue and cry and berate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan). The hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) made against our esteemed minister bitter charges which were very different from what the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) had to say about the minister. I do not believe any hon. member in his heart of hearts would defame the Minister of Labour; nor do I think in their right minds they would make against the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) accusation not befitting at least a young member

Unemployment-Mr. Baldwin
As regards this contention over matters that cannot be controlled there is but one remedy, and that is for the government to carry on public works and to give a fair remuneration to the people employed on them. These works are diversified in character; there are wharves, rip-rapping to keep the rivers in their proper channels, public buildings and highways. I cannot believe it would be a good policy for the government to construct national highways, although the United States are giving vast sums to the different states, and they call the roads so assisted government or state roads. We have in this country many places that can be beautified and made productive by the expenditure of money, let it come whence it may. In this way we could give work to our people who wish to work, and if we have in Canada foreigners who do not want to work, I would have them deported. The period within which they can be deported is five years and we have in this country some vicious men who should have been deported before that period elapsed. About every week when I am in Montreal I see quite a number of people who have just come to Canada, and I am glad to see them come if they will help to develop our wealth; because we heard it said during and after the war that we needed people to develop our naitural resources and to help to pay our national debt. Surely if we can get people who will cost the country nothing to bring them here, it is a good idea. Everyone is pretty well agreed that assisted immigration should stop, and I believe no more money should be spent in that effort. Everyone knows that Australia is not very alluring at the present time. There were a few years when Australia was attracting more people, but she is at present in a bad financial position; England does not seem to be getting much better, while Germany and some other countries are getting worse. I do not say that we want a Mussolini to rule in this country, but in Italy the chief ruler makes the people stay on the land.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Willis Keith Baldwin: That is a fact. Mussolini does not allow people Who are living on a farm to leave it.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: In this country many
people want to remain on the land and they are not allowed to remain there.


Willis Keith Baldwin: Has the mortgage been
foreclosed?


Milton Neil Campbell: Certainly.


Willis Keith Baldwin: A man who would do
that is hardhearted. I have many mortgages,
but I have never yet intimated to a man that he should get off the land. I would rather give a man a farm than foreclose him, because the courts are all in sympathy with the man you are foreclosing and you would not foreclose many men before you would get sick of your job.


Milton Neil Campbell: Probably in the hon.
member's province the farmers are not obliged to pay 8 per cent interest on farm mortgages.


Willis Keith Baldwin: A good many years ago,
in all the border states as you went across the Mississippi right out to the Pacific coast, the ruling rate of interest was from 10 to 12 per cent. It is not many years since you could lend money in Oregon at 8 per cent.


Milton Neil Campbell: That is what has driven thousands off the land in the United States.


Willis Keith Baldwin: That is characteristic in
newer sections that are not so well established. The west is a long way off, thousands of miles. The wealthy people in New England lent their money in the middle western states, for instance, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, and the Dakotas, and many banks were ruined. When a bank was ruined there was no hope of getting the money back; but if a person lent money out there and saw it was no use to dispossess the farmer but that it was better to hold the land, pay the taxes and wait for better times, he was all right, because the value of land doubled, trebled and quadrupled and the eastern investor who was not avaricious got his money back years later. It is characteristic of America at least that interest has been high to the people on the western frontier, right to the Pacific coast. But I am sorry to learn that in this age of community spirit, with only ten banks now throughout Canada, our people in the west have to pay more than 7 per cent. Seven per cent is the ruling rate of interest throughout the east except to people who can command large sums of money, and of course such people can hypothecate gilt-edged securities and secure money for 6 per cent. Thirteen years ago, when I came to the house, I remember statements being made that the rate of interest was 10 and sometimes 12 per cent, so that conditions have been alleviated to some extent if the rate has been reduced to 8 per cent. I believe, however, that rate will be reduced before very long. The grafters, gamblers and brokers in the United States the year before the collapse of the stock market were getting practically all the money in that country and paying 7 and 8 per cent for it, while legitimate business went begging or even went into

Unemployment-Mr. Baldwin
bankruptcy on account of not being able to secure money. Now, with money at 3 or 4 per cent in New York, the situation is different and I suppose interest rates will become easier.
As regards immigration-


Milton Neil Campbell: Tell us about unemployment.


Willis Keith Baldwin: For sixty years the situation has been just the same as it is in 1930. And here we are with a beautiful April shower this morning to release the frost from old mother earth and start her blossoming in all her glory. Is there any reason why people should hang around the cities unemployed? I would vote for a law to make an able-bodied man work.


Milton Neil Campbell: What if he wants to
work and cannot get it?


Willis Keith Baldwin: Those are world conditions, my dear man, and you and I cannot do anything about them. I have trouble in getting help to work for me. I have been here two months and my son has written me several letters in that time saying that he cannot get help to start the mill. As a matter of fact, there are more people looking for work and praying that they won't find it than my hon. friend imagines. There are people who want to live and die in laziness. The farmers of this country are working fifteen and sixteen hours a day. Those are my hours, but I would work only nine or ten hours a day if I could get help to relieve me in my store and in my mill and in the woods. Conditions are such that people will not stay in the rural sections of the country. Some woman wants to get out and show her finery, and she does not care how she gets it, by hook or crook.
I am glad the chain stores are developing in this country. The old-time merchants who sell goods on credit now have to compete with the Atlantic and Pacific, the Stop and Shop, the Dominion Stores, and all the other chain stores. It is going to be a good thing for the country. We merchants have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars trusting goods to everybody that wanted them. Some would claim to be sick for six months and would be getting goods on credit, and then when you finally refused any more credit, I have had one say, "I have not been sick a day this winter." He did not tell me that; he was afraid to, but he would send some member of his family. Finally when spring came I would tell such people: It is time for you to get out and shift for yourself.


Milton Neil Campbell: Tell us about unemployment.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I am telling you some of the conditions I meet with. I have already spoken about servant girls. I have had two or three from England, and- I assisted them over. The last one had high ambitions. She wanted to be a nurse. She thought Canada was the size of England, and that the little Baldwin mills must be right close to Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, that she could jump in a trolley car and reach them in no time. Naturally she was disappointed. My wife told me that she was a lady of attainments. I lent her sixty dollars to go to Vancouver, and she repaid me every cent. Another one, without attainments, wrote me from Windsor saying that she could not get into the United States and would be deported. She wrote me for twenty-five dollars, and I replied; "If you had stayed at my place, you would have had $150 in the savings bank and would not need to borrow."


Jean-François Pouliot: Did she get the twenty
five dollars?


Willis Keith Baldwin: Most emphatically she
did not. The Lord helps those who help themselves. I do not put myself on a par with the Almighty, but I like to see people do something for themselves. My hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) asks me how I would deal with unemployment. I will tell him:	Get to work. You cannot put
any energy into sissified, pussyfooting and spineless people. If you knock them down, they might get up and come at you. There is no other way under the sun. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink, and so long as men can stay around the city and town and sponge their living, many of them will not work. There are several ways of begging. There is the polite way of living on your friends, borrowing money from them. That is simply giving your money away because they do not intend to pay you back. The sum of $337,000 has gone out of my office here in the last six years and I never expect to see a red cent back, but my philanthropy is a little less now than it was then. I have learned a considerable amount about human nature, and the man you help most is the one who will evade you, who will not speak well of you, and at election day probably will be the last man to vote for you.
There is no way in which we can sit here and legislate to make people work. Legislation will not stop unemployment. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) wants $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 taken out of

Unemployment-Mr. Esling
the treasury to relieve unemployment. I would not let a woman or child go hungry in this country, and there are hundreds of thousands of other people who feel just the same way, but I would not vote to help an ablebodied loafer. I would make him work if there was any law in this country to make him do it. I know from my own experience that it is easier to do your own work than to get any of that class to do it for you. I think our Minister of Labour is doing all that any minister of labour could do. I notice that my thrifty friend from Halifax (Mr. Black) and my hon. friend from Lincoln, who I understand have accumulated a good deal of this world's goods, are not jumping to their feet and saying: Grab the money out of the treasury to relieve this awful unemployment situation. I have not heard a word from them, not one, and I do not think we shall hear from them in this debate. Are we never going to think of the people in this country who toil and labour and delve, working overtime? If they have accumulated money by their own hard work, are we going to tax it out of them to the last cent? There were too many in the last war who stayed at home and said: We will spend the last dollar. They had a flippant tongue, but no capital, and were mighty glad not to go to the front. I know that class, even ministers of the gospel. It is not laughable.
AVhen we talk about alleviating unemployment, there are old rookeries in Montreal and other cities that we could get rid of and put up public buildings there. I do not want to repeat what has been said about not giving a five cent piece to a Tory government, but I will say this, that if the Tories were in power they would not give a five cent piece to a Liberal government. I was never a very bigoted politician, and I believe there are good people and bad in every party. It may be suggested that one way of relieving unemployment would be to tear down our old, unwholesome buildings and embellish the sites with new and beautiful structures. But then the government would have to go into the rental business, and people who moved in woidd say: This is government property and we should live here free. There are a lot of people too lazy to work who think they are quite capable of running the country. I do not suppose there is a member here who is not asked by some of his constituents now and again: What are you doing up there in Ottawa? And then they proceed to tell him how parliament should be conducted. Whole multitudes think they should get into the civil service and have soft jobs because a few
Toms, Dicks and Harrys under the old patronage system got into the service, although they were as illiterate as jack rabbits.
It takes money to alleviate unemployment.
I believe a trans-Canada road would be a good investment, if it could be undertaken. It should be built as far north as possible, say, up by the Hudson Bay railway, so you would hold tourists from across the line the maximum time. Up there they would find it cool and breezy. But I would not allow them to bring in more than a thousand cigars and ten thousand cigarettes. I have known some pretty smart customs officers who thought tourists should not bring in a carload of cigarettes and cigars, but these officers were found fault with because-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Time.


Mr. W. K. ESLING (West Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, because of climatic conditions it would be both unreasonable and unjust to charge the government with responsibility for all unemployment in Canada at this time: but where such unemployment is caused directly or indirectly by reason of government policy or lack of policy, then it seems to me that the government should accept responsibility. It is only in connection with the bearing that government policy has on unemployment that I should like to add a few words to this debate.
I regret very much that the Minister of Health (Mr. King) has absented himself from the house, because he is the minister from British Columbia representing East Kootenay, and I simply make this reference in passing for the reason that throughout the province of British Columbia to-day there is no district in which unemployment conditions are more deplorably distressing than in the district which the minister represents. Up until a few weeks ago the coal 'mines in Fernie were getting out about sixty carloads of coal daily; then conditions changed and the production was curtailed to the extent that fully one half of the coal miners are out of employment to-day and the other half are working only part time. I have before me the Nelson news, the daily paper in that district, which gives details of the actual conditions under the heading:
Fernie miners' children hungry-three hundred miners unemployed following mine shut down-all credit stopped.
Conditions there were so bad that the various communities were called upon to endorse a resolution which was sent to the government. It was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and also to the minister from British Columbia (Mr. King, Koot-

Unemployment-Mr. Esling
enay), and I can assure them that those worried wage earners and the distressed mothers and hungry children cannot be satisfied by the usual reply the government give, that "they will take the matter under consideration." The matter became so critical that the miners and people of Fernie called a mass meeting at which they passed the following resolution:
Whereas we have reasons to believe that the Crowsnest Pass Coal Company is controlled by American capital, and whereas we have reasons to believe that at a recent meeting of President Hoover and the chief industrialists of the United States, the slogan of "Buy U.S.A. products" was adopted, and whereas through the adoption of such a slogan the Great Northern Railway cancelled all orders for coal with the Crowsnest Pass Coal Company causing three hundred men to be laid off by the said coal company,
Therefore be it resolved that we the Fernie miners now assembled request the federal government to investigate the now distressing conditions prevailing in the mining district of Fernie,
Be it further resolved the Fernie miners request the federal government to assist in sending in immediate relief and thus relieving the distress now prevailing amongst the miners of the Fernie district.
No. (2), that we request the federal government to stop all immigration until all residents of Canada be employed permanently.
No. (3), that we ask that the moneys now being used for immigration be utilized as a subsidy for freighting coal from Alberta and southeastern British Columbia and so find employment for unemployed miners in this district.
It is interesting to look back to see just how the present conditions were anticipated some years ago. I find that in 1925 the right hon. Arthur Meighen introduced the following resolution :
That to enable the products of the western and maritime provinces to reach more readily the markets, the special transportation burdens borne by these provinces should be shared by the Dominion, either by contribution to long haul freight costs, or by assistance in some other form.
Strange to say the minister from British Columbia, who represents federal policies in that province, voted against the resolution. It will be interesting to see what explanation he will make when he reaches Fernie in a few days. No doubt he is on the way there for the purpose of fixing up his political fences, but he will have so many questions to answer in relation to his stand on matters which are close to the hearts of the people of British Columbia, that I really think it will be rather embarrassing for him.
I want also to put on Hansard a resolution passed at a meeting of the Sandon miners' union last January:

Whereas; The present immigration policy of the Canadian government has a detrimental effect upon the Canadian workers, and,
Whereas; All cities in Canada are burdened with unemployment and a large number of them are forced to establish relief work and soup kitchens: we, the members of Sandon Miners' Union, in meeting assembled, contend that no nation can survive on soup kitchens, thus lowering our standard of living, and,
Whereas; The prairie provinces have stated definitely their opposition to assisted immigration, and steamship or railway subsidized immigration, as they have now a surplus of unemployed. Therefore, be it
Resolved; That we demand that all immigration to Canada be immediately discontinued, and that the government take immediate steps to establish unemployment insurance, and be it further
Resolved; That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Premier of Canada, the Ministers of Immigration and Labour, Jas. S. Woodsworth, M.P.. W. K. Esling, M.P., and the Hon. J. H. King.
They, too, recognize the fact that the immigration policy of this government is contributing to unemployment, and it will be seen they ask that immigration be restricted and the policy of unemployment insurance established by the government. I repeat that I regret the minister is not here to state his attitude in connection with these problems.
At this time I shall refer to another matter which is directly connected with government policy, namely, the position of the man on the land. I refer to the man who purchased land, cleared it, planted his crops and hoped to receive some return from his investment and labour. On three different occasions the Minister of Health voted in favour of permitting the entry into Canada of surplus farm products. The strange thing is that the minister seemed to blow hot and cold1; when he went- through British Columbia he talked one way, and in the House of Commons he voted another way. His statements to the people of West Kootenay and East Kootenay are not borne out by his vote in this house. Having voted to permit the influx of these surplus farm products, he went into the Okanagan district and said that the Dominion government was fully alive to the situation created by the lack of anti-glut duty on vegetables. It seems incredible that any minister of the government could hope to ride two horses at once, but we find that to be the policy of the minister from British Columbia.
There is another question of policy arising out of the matter of highways. There is no doubt in the world that the construction of highways would have absorbed much of the present unemployment. To my mind there is nothing which the people of British Columbia

Unemployment-Mr. Esling
would welcome more than highway construction, and there is no doubt that it should result in the construction of a trans-Canada highway. In the year 1919, the government contributed $20,000,000 for that purpose, and the resolution of the hon. member for Atha-baska (Mr. Kellner) merely asked for a continuation of that grant, so that the provinces could carry on the work. Surely such a building program would have materially relieved the present unemployment situation, and opposition to such contributions must necessarily be the policy of every Liberal candidate in the coming election. The minister from British Columbia voted against any aid to highways.
Hon. members in this house will no doubt remember the resolution of the member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy). He asked for the immediate construction of a Pacific coast outlet from the Peace River district. He did not stipulate a specific route, but asked that the best possible route should be taken. He did not tie the government down to anything in particular, but merely advocated construction by the best possible route. In this connection we find the minister from British Columbia going into the city of Vancouver and other cities along the coast, and telling the people how enthusiastic he was about the Pacific coast outlet, when only two or three months previously he had gone on record in this house as being opposed to it.
I wish to make some remarks about the Doukhobors. I do not touch upon this subject for the purpose of amusement, because we have had enough amusement in connection with this very serious situation. The position of the matter is serious, particularly in its relation to unemployment. The Doukhobor settlements are fast growing communities. In those districts we find two or three Canadian citizens who may have put all they owned into a piece of ground ten or twenty acres in extent; they have planted an orchard and have made a living. The Doukhobors have come in and bought the property of one of the settlers, with the result that the other two move away. Canadians will not live alongside of these people; they do not want to, and nobody wants them to, I told you before of an instance where a whole Doukhobor family was working nude in the field, and the wife of the neighbouring farmer was compelled to submit to the embarrassment caused by such conduct. These people are not only making it impossible for the Canadian farmers, vegetable growers and others to compete with them, but they are entering other fields of industry. I may tell you that the late Minister of Immigration and Colonization, Mr. Forke, sent to British Columbia and received a special report on Doukhobor activities. In that report there is information as to how men were being driven off the land because the Doukhobors had no hours of work, no wages to consider, and their products were turned over in competition with those of the local farmers. To-day we find the Doukhobors are an important factor in the pole and tie industry. In 1928 there were 31,000,000 feet of poles cut in British Columbia. Of that total 21,000,000 feet were shipped, and much of this was controlled by the Doukhobors. Surely when we realize that these people have entered into the different fields of industry in competition with Canadian labour, we appreciate the fact that we have another reason for unemployment. I wish to refer to the policy of the government in regard to these people, and to point out that although they were admitted to this country as far back as 1898 and bonused to come here, they were excluded by the Conservative government in 1912. Things progressed very well until 1926, when the minister from British Columbia, conscious of the competition which existed, joined the government in passing an order in council throwing down the bars and inviting more Doukhobors to come in. I shall be keenly interested to learn how he will explain this matter when he goes before his constituents. This is a policy which each Liberal candidate in the Dominion of Canada must accept when he enters the coming election. We find the minister from British Columbia absolutely out of step with all the policies in the immediate interests of the people in his constituency.
In regard to these matters I want to fortify my contention by specifying certain matters in respect of which the minister's attitude is on record in Hansard, so that there can be no controversy about it. In the first place we find the minister on record as being opposed to grants for the Pacific coast outlet from the Peace River district. We find him opposed to technical education. He has placed himself on record on three different occasions as being in favour of the importation of surplus farm products at glut prices, and he is also on record as being opposed to giving the returned men the benefit of the doubt in their applications for pension, in cases where disability has occurred after discharge. We find him on three further occasions opposed to the abolition of the sales tax on boots, shoes and clothing; these are commodities which the unemployed must buy. He is on record as being opposed to federal aid for the construction of highways, and he is in opposition
1332	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
also to any contribution in connection with long haul freight costs on western products. Western products are products of British Columbia, and products of the coal mines at Fernie; and he is therefore on record as being in opposition to any contribution to long haul freight costs on Fernie coal. There is another paragraph in the resolution which places him on record as being opposed to any other kind of assistance in the marketing of Fernie coal, so I am sure the minister will have a very pleasant time fixing up his political fences when he reaches home again.
I have referred to these questions purely as matters of policy affecting unemployment. There is no doubt that the minister, together with every other Liberal candidate at the next election, will have a hard time explaining just what are the policies of this government, and why he supports so many government measures which are contrary to the interests and welfare of the people of Canada.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, before I come to my remarks, which will be rather short, I should like to refer to some of the points brought up by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton). It seems to me he did not attempt to deal with that part of unemployment which affects the municipalities and which has become a burden to them. He mentioned seasonal unemployment with regard to fishermen and ' sailors. I come from a constituency in which there are very many of these two classes of people, and I find that we have very little trouble with them. They are employed in the summer; they count the summer as their year of employment, and they are no burden and no menace to the municipalities.
Then the minister suggested that the municipalities might take upon themselves the construction of sewers and work of that kind during the winter. I might remind the minister that this already has been done by almost every municipality in Ontario. He also referred to the fact that building operations might be extended into the winter, but the men who are engaged in the construction of buildings do not enter into the question of unemployment. From the statistics issued by the department here at Ottawa it will be seen that the list of unemployed does not contain any union men so that the references of the minister to the fishermen and the sailors, the construction of sewers and the extension of building operations do not really go to the point at all.
This amendment has occasioned quite a lengthy discussion, which indicates that the subject is a live one in many parts of this

great Dominion; that it is not only a matter of local interest but that it has a wider aspect. The hon. member who moved the amendment evidently had this wider aspect in mind when he moved his amendment, but those hon. members who have spoken for the government have put the question on a very low plane. The speech of the Minister of Labour indicated that this was merely a question of party politics, but as we all know that is not the case.
Reference has been made to the calling of a conference to discuss this matter, and it was thought that such a conference, if called, would have done a great deal towards the solution of the problem of unemployment. However, the government refused to call such a conference, and nothing has been done. So far as I can see, nothing but good would result from such a meeting; you cannot enter into discussion of this great question without taking many interests into consideration, and surely the calling together of men representing different interests all over the Dominion would bring about at least a sincere consideration of the question. However the government has chosen to disregard that suggestion and has ignored the wider aspect of this grave question.
I know the Minister of Labour has a really warm heart and would turn from his way to help the poor, hungry people of this country, but in the provincial legislature, where I knew him very well, as well as in this parliament, evidently he fell in with very poor company. At all events, he has been unable to influence this government It may be that he had the wrong password in approaching the mercy seat; he may have taken the great book Industry and Humanity with him; but I am afraid that book has been given the wrong title-it should be called Industry and Party Politics.
The Prime Minister has refused the amendment, and I think during the course of his speech he made the greatest slip of his political career. Prime Ministers always have been looked upon rather as the fathers of the people, persons to whom suffering men and women can come and relate their miseries. However, our Prime Minister of to-day has lost that human touch; the working man of Canada now must assume his party toga, put on his party stripe and approach the throne if he wants a job. This has been the case in Ottawa; working men have paid their dollar fee, secured a badge and card, and then have been sent down to the party leaders to see about it. Even now that Liberal working man in Ontario is forgotten by the

Unemployment-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
Prime Minister, who says he will not give one five-cent piece to any Tory government for unemployment. The Prime Minister must mean by that, if he means anything, that the Liberal working man of Ontario must go to Prince Edward Island or to Quebec if he wishes to receive any aid from the federal government. The Prime Minister has hoisted his flag and sounded his slogan, which is "Vote Liberal or starve".
In answer to the Prime Minister, however, who has laid this great burden first upon the municipalities and then upon the provinces, and who has been seeking out funk-hole after funk-hole in which to shelter himself, I would say that funk-holing will not relieve him of his great responsibility in connection with this matter. There are very strong associations relating this question to the federal government. The Department of Trade and Commerce has been referred to; the making of treaties, with their consequent effect upon the people of this country, has been brought up also, and I shall not discuss it further. The fiscal policy of the government has affected unemployment. I would like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to this fact; in my constituency at least two industries have been forced to cease operations because of the fiscal policy of this government. What is the position of a man who has been put out of work because of this fiscal policy? First, he may become idle; second, he can move over and take the other man's job; or, third, he may migrate. Whatever course is followed, unemployment is produced by an act of this government. The great textile industry has been affected, and one plant in my constituency which filled a great need in providing mixed employment has closed its doors. These employees have the choice of idleness, taking the other man's job, or migrating.
The effect of immigration upon unemployment has been mentioned, and I do not intend to discuss that phase any further. Unemployment lies at the root of practically every social problem in this or any other country, and the present government cannot escape responsibility. Crime increases during the days of unemployment, and such crime always affects to a great extent the life of the community. I do not think that any citizen of our land would not prefer to have a full dinner pail rather than free government rations in a penitentiary, jail or prison.
The great number of unemployed are not affected by the excuse offered by the government that much is being done for the returned man. The returned man claims as his right that which has been done for him, and that
fact cannot be offered as an excuse to the unemployed. The government having refused to discuss or consider the wider aspects of this question of unemployment as brought out by the amendment, we are driven to this course; the only thing remaining for us to do is to bring to the attention of the government some local matters which are affecting unemployment in our different constituencies. Although I do not agree entirely with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton), he has said that seasonal unemployment affects every constituency where the labouring man is to be found. There is much that the government could do to relieve this situation. It is quite true that the railway companies have been urged to continue construction work, and that the manufacturers of locomotives and cars have been asked to keep their plants running, but the government should go a step farther and see that the work is continued throughout the winter time. Contracts have been given in my own city which could just as easily have been started in December as in February.
It has been claimed that the government is rendering assistance through the large construction works being carried on. In most cases of this kind a large mass of labour is moved from some unknown point into the locality where the work is under construction, to the disadvantage and to the ousting of local labour. That situation applies to every large construction work carried on by the government. The government should see that local labour receives the benefit or its share of such work.
This government has given contracts for the construction outside of this country of many necessities which could be manufactured within the country. I take my stand with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson), who mentioned the building of ships. When the claim was made that these ships could have been constructed in Canada, the only reply given by the Minister of the Interior was, "Oh, nonsense." Does the hon. minister believe that the Canadian workman has an inferiority complex, and thinks that this work cannot be done in Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They wanted to build
the navy here.


Arthur Edward Ross: The only reply we received was, Oh, nonsense. We were told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that it would cost 40 per cent more, but if the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) were to use the same method as practised in giving coal contracts, this difficulty could be overcome. I have before me a return brought down this year which shows
1334	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Ross (Kingston)
that tenders were called for coal supplies. The friend of the government was not the lowest tenderer, and what did they do? He was given two successive chances to bring his tender down below the lowest tenderer. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce would adopt that method, many articles at present manufactured outside of the country could be built in Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce must know of the investment in shipyard equipment, and he should realize that something should be done for this industry. Over $100,000,000 is invested in this industry; we have dry docks, and we are extending others to accommodate larger ships, but if ships required for Canada are not built in Canada, what chance has that industry to develop? Is this $100,000,000 to be thrown away, and are the efforts made to build up this industry to be ignored?
Surely the government can give some further consideration to this industry, which in turn affects a great many other industries. Our steel mills, the carpentry trade, our railroads, are interlocked; in fact, I do not think there is any industry which affects so many other industries as does that of shipbuilding. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce would only give our shipyards a chance to repair Canadian ships he would be doing something. Year after year, I have brought to the attention of this government the difference between the attitude taken by the United States on this question and the attitude taken by Canada. When an American ship comes to a Canadian port to undergo repairs, she is taxed 50 per cent of the cost of the repairs when she returns to her home country, but Canada does not make the same provision. If the directorates of our steamship companies were placed on the same plane as they are in the United States, then we would have more ships built in Canada and more repair work would be carried on in our dry docks.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Edward Ross: Before six o'clock
I had pointed out that the amendment implied a consideration of the wider view of unemployment; that the suggestion of a conference was merely an attempt to crystallize the Canadian view; that it would gather together people with many varied interests and would be followed by beneficial results, and without any injury, even though it failed to 
effect a complete cure. The government, however, refused to consider the wider aspects of this subject and chose to discuss it from the lower plane of party politics; and perhaps the lowest plane was reached by the Prime Minister when he avowed-not once; but repeated that he would not give five cents to any Tory government for unemployment. The slogan, therefore, in the next election will no doubt be: Vote Liberal or starve. It has remained, therefore, for us to point out where unemployment could be reduced by government action, and before six o'clock I had been discussing shipbuilding and repairs to shipping in this province.
I had pointed out how the United States protected her shipbuilding and ship repairing. Perhaps I can best indicate in a few words the interest they take in the matter of providing employment for their people in this work by saying that under the United States law no ships may engage in coastwise trade unless they are built, owned and documented in the United States of America; while, for many years, the Canadian fleet has not been a credit to Canada or to our national industry. Secondly, on repairs to American vessels made in Canadian yards the United States collects fifty per cent duty at the first port of call. Canada's rates on repairs to Canadian vessels in American yards is twenty-five per cent only, and that is payable only if and when the vessel reenters Canadian coastwise trade within a year. The house will readily see, therefore, that American vessels will take care to have all their repairs done in American repair yards, and that very little of it will come to Canadian yards. But if the government are alive to the interests of Canadian workingmen they can see to it that these repair yards of ours, as they are on the inland lakes at least, get their fair share of repair work. That would affect beneficially several constituencies in this province. As I said at the beginning, the government having refused to consider the wider aspects of this question of unemployment, we must come down to these local conditions, drawing them to the government's attention and requesting the government to take an interest in the protection of Canadian workingmen.
Closely allied with that subject has been the government's refusal to assist in technical education. With ship repair yards in this country actively engaged, we can provide employment for a great many of our workingmen; but with technical education I think we can do very much better. I look upon unemployment, as has been pointed out so many times in this debate, as a fluctuation.

Unemployment-Mr. Coote
Men in this country are drawing away from what you would call pick and shovel work to employment demanding more in the way of technical education; we have a very large field for their technical skill, and as a result a small field for those without technical training. That condition could be corrected by taking care to give the boys who are growing up to the age of manhood a technical education that would at least lead them into the fields of technical work and fit them for those skilled occupations for which there is a greater demand in this country.
I am not going to take further time. I have drawn the attention of the government to these conditions which are, I confess, local to my own constituency, and pointed out how the government could provide employment for many men. I would ask the government seriously to consider that technical education has a great deal to do with unemployment in this country, and I think that any federal government would be well repaid for any expenditure that it made for this purpose. The government would be well repaid to look at this thing from a humane standpoint. I know that there are a good many warmhearted men amongst the ministers; I know that our friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) if he were only free from the company he is with, would look at this question from the humane side, instead of supporting the laying out of great parks and public squares and the beautifying of capitals, not only in this country, but elsewhere. If the government would only look behind all this beauty and see the frantic condition of the unemployed father and mother, and the pitiful condition of the hungry children and emaciated boys and girls, if they would only consider the plight of the boys and girls handicapped by the want of food and care, I feel that I should not appeal to them in vain. We want a big, strong, healthy population, and we have the country and the stock to produce it, but if this unemployment situation continues, if the government lets our boys and girls go hungry and obliges them to stay away from school for want of clothing, then there will be produced a condition in this country that it will take a lifetime to bring back to normal. Above all, when we bear in mind the vital issues at stake, we should not be concerned whether this is a municipal, a provincial or a federal matter; we should view it from the standpoint of the future of Canada, and deal with it in the interests of our boys and girls, the coming men and women of this country.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, like many other members, personally I am very tired of this debate, and were it not for the fact that there is a great deal of unemployment in my own constituency, I would not take up the time of the house by speaking to-night. I am sure most of us are rather sympathetic with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who is anxious to get the house into committee of supply. But in my constituency there are a large number of unemployed men, particularly in the coal mining area. When I was there last December I found most of the men were working only one day in the week and occasionally two days. There are five large mines in the district, and I think that statement generally would apply to them all. I find on inquiry from the bureau of statistics that last year -1929-the HiMcrest Collieries worked 192 days; the International Coal and Coke Company mine at Coleman worked 190 days; the McGillivray Creek Coal and Coke Company mine worked 210 days; the West Canadian Collieries Greenhill mine worked 176 days, and at Bellevue 173 days. This means that if a miner worked every day the mine was open at Bellevue he would get 173 days' work in the year. That man must be on hand ready to answer the call of the mine whistle every workday in the year if he wishes to get in that 173 days' work. Taking all the mines together they averaged only 188 working days in each mine.
This is a very important industry. The output of this district,-and it is practically confined to these five mines-in 1928 was 1,639,000 tons. Bearing in mind what I have just said, that one of these mines worked 173 days in the year, I should like to give to the house some figures as to the wages these miners earned. I am quoting from an article entitled Mining Conditions in Alberta, which appeared in The Canadian Unionist of February, 1930. It is written by Frank Wheatley, Vice-President of the All-Canadian Congress of Labour and President of the Mine Workers' Union of Canada. He says:
Contract miners earn as much as eight to ten dollars per day, and as little as $5.40 per day in the organized sections of the coalfield. In the unorganized sections wages are often as low as $2.50 per day, and these low rates are as inimical to the interests of the coal-owners as a whole as they are to the welfare of the miners who receive them. The day-wage scale runs from $4.20 for outside labourers to $5.50 for skilled workers, such as carpenters, mechanics, etc. Labourers inside the mine are paid $4.45; horse drivers, $4.90 to $5.25; miners, timber-men and track-layers, $5.40 to $5.57.

Unemployment

Mr. Coote
Any miner who worked 173 days at $4.20 per day would earn a total of $726.60 in the whole year. The highest paid labourer outside the mines is paid $5.50 a day, and if he worked 173 days he would earn $951.50. This man must hold himself in readiness to work any weekday in the whole year to earn this amount. Most of these men have families to keep. Personally I do not think anyone in this house would say that any of these miners could possibly keep his family for a year on that amount.
I have here a letter from the Secretary of the Mine Workers' Union of Canada at Coleman, dated January 14, 1930, so this is comparatively recent information as to the situation there. He says:
The International mine is working on an average of two days per week, and there are around 200 men employed.
I may add that when that mine is working at full capacity in the summer time it employs from 400 to 500 men. He continues:
The McGillivray mine is working with 250 men. The miners' union has spent about $1,800 on relief.
That is, the miners' union at Coleman.
The companies have not donated a cent in cash, but through our efforts we got about 25 married men at the International mine and 13 married men at the McGillivray mine temporary work.
I am only quoting briefly from this letter as I do not wish to take up too much time. The writer goes on to say:
There is no indication that work has or will improve in the near future and although we have obtained temporary relief for the majority of married men at the present moment we have still a serious state of affairs confronting us. There are between 60 and 70 single men in the camp who have done no work since July and we cannot get the authorities to do anything for them. The union has reached its limit in this direction and what is to become of them is a problem. The majority of them are immigrants brought to this country under the present immigration policy supposedly for another class of labour, but drifted into the mining camps thus creating the present situation.
That is one of the grounds on which I wish to bring the attention of the federal government to the situation existing there. The problem is due largely to our immigration policy or lack of policy. I want again to emphasize one point in this letter. The writer says:
There are between 60 and 70 single men in the camp who have done no work since July.
That is six months. You might wonder how these men have lived. Let me relate the

experience of an immigrant that I met in Coleman. He came to Canada in 1928, taking advantage of a harvester excursion from England. He worked in railway construction gangs for a few weeks in the fall of 1928 and was finally sent to Coleman by the employment office at Calgary. When he interviewed the gentleman whose name had been given to him by the employment officer, he said he did not want any men for three weeks. This man and two others who went with him stayed at Coleman for three months before they secured any work at all, and during that time they were boarded by a Chinaman who runs a boarding house there. These men said to me, frankly, they did not know how they could have existed if it had not been for the bigheartedness of the Chinaman in furnishing them with board and meal tickets for the three months before they got work.
I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in outlining the policy of the government towards the question of unemployment relief said that the first duty of providing such relief must fall on the municipalities. I want to show the government how impossible it is for a municipality like Coleman to take care of the unemployed that are there at the present day. In this town seventy per cent of the taxes are levied on the homes of the miners themselves. Now, if the miners are working on the average only 188 days in the year at wages such as I have quoted, how is it possible for that town to take care of the local unemployment situation? It may be possible for the larger municipalities to take care of a problem such as this, but it is not possible for small municipalities, such as those in these mining districts. In this case, the municipality, I believe, have spent $1,000 in relief work. They gave work for the purpose of assisting these men who were in need of relief. Yet that thousand dollars is only a drop in the bucket to what was really required. The miners themselves have suggested a remedy for the situation as it there exists. I may say that over 90 per cent of the coal produced in this bituminous coal district is taken by the railway companies; in this particular case I think it is practically all taken by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The railway companies take the bulk of their coal during the months of April, May, June and July; sometimes they begin taking it out in the month of March. Because of an immigration policy under which a large number of the miners have come from the old country under the guise of agricultural labourers, the mining companies have been able to put on as many workers as they wished. They work

the mines to full capacity, and are able to fiill the orders of the railway company in four or five months of the year; for the remaining six or seven months the work slackens diown to one or two days a week. The suggestion of the miners is that if a conference were arranged between the operators of the mines and the railway company, the railway company might be persuaded to spread their orders over a longer term of months. The miners' union passed a resolution last November dealing with this matter, and I think I shall take a few minutes to read it so that it may be recorded on Hansard. It is as follows:
Whereas the period of time worked by the coal miners of the Crowsnest Pass mining district of Alberta is yearly becoming less though each year a larger tonnage of coal is produced;
And whereas it has been the practice of the coal mining companies to employ many hundreds of transient miners for a few months of the year to meet the orders for storage coal required by the Canadian Pacific Railway from that district, with the result that those workmen engaged in the mining industry permanently are not able to obtain sufficient work during the balance of the year to secure a living for themselves and their families causing the expenditures of much money by the provincial government, municipal councils, and the trade unions for relief purposes;
Therefore be it resolved that repesentations be made to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on whose railway system 90 per cent of the coal productions from the said mining district is used, asking this company to so regulate their orders for coal that the productions may be spread over a longer period of the year, thus enabling those persons permanently required to man the industry throughout the year to obtain a livelihood without further having to seek relief from various sources; and, failing satisfactory adjustment along the lines suggested, that the federal and provincial governments be requested to institute a measure of control within the industry through the appointment of a body similar to the present railway commission under whose direction such mismanagement shall be corrected.
This matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan). I first brought it to his attention last year and received his hearty cooperation. It might fairly be said that due to his efforts the situation at the present time is better than it wold have been had he not intervened. At this time I wish to ask the Minister of Labour to go a little farther and to try to arrange such a conference as has been suggested. I think that the operators and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company should both be represented at this conference, and it is my opinion that the federal government might take the initiative in arranging it. The men who are keeping up these towns and keeping up their schools are what might be called the 2419-85
Unemployment-Mr. Coote
permanent employees of these mining companies. I think in all fairness the work should be confined largely to them, and it could be done without any great inconvenience to the railway company. I ask the Minister of Labour to urge upon this government the necessity for initiating such a conference. May I point out to the Minister of Labour the seriousness of the situation at the present time? Because of the small crop which had to be handled last year I understand that this year the railway companies are asking tenders for half a million tons less coal than they took in 1929, and if no action such as is suggested is taken we will have more unemployment than we had last year.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) asked this afternoon for some concrete suggestions. It is my intention to accede to his request, and to put some suggestions before the government. The operators of the bituminous coal mines in Alberta and eastern British Columbia have estimated that 465,000 tons.of American bituminous coal are consumed annually in the province of Manitoba; this figure does not include the coal consumed by the railway companies. I am informed that the Canadian Pacific Railway is using Canadian coal as far east as Kenora, and I make that statement because someone said yesterday that American coal was being used as far as Moose Jaw.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: You are referring to
Alberta coal.


George Gibson Coote: Yes. These operators have
made formal application to the Federal Government for a subvention of the freight rate to the extent of one-fifth of a cent per ton mile on bituminous soal shipped from Alberta and eastern British Columbia and sold in the area east of the Manitoba-Saskat-chewan boundary. The application is very short, and I shall put it on Hansard:
Whereas the Dominion government recognizes the advantage to the Dominion of Canada as a whole by an extension of the markets in Canada for Canadian coal;
And whereas this recognition is now being made in a practical way by a subvention of freight rates on shipments of Nova Scotia coal to markets in Ontario and Quebec, and by a subvention of freight rates on Alberta domestic coal sent to Ontario market;
And whereas Alberta bituminous coal is now receiving no such subvention or assistance;
And whereas the bituminous coal mining industry in Alberta is in a very serious plight because of the lack of markets, which naturally is causing a great deal of distress among the employees connected with the industry;
And whereas Alberta bituminous coal cannot now be marketed in Manitoba and eastward on account of competition with United States coal;

Unemployment-Mr. Coote

And wliereas a substantial market exists in Manitoba and eastward;
Be it resolved that the Dominion government be informed of our situation and approached for a subvention of freight of onedifth of a cent per ton mile-the same as Nova Scotia- for all bituminous coal shipped from Alberta and sold in the area east of the Manitoba-Saskatcliewan boundary.
A subsequent memorandum was presented to the government. I shall not take up the time of the house to read it fully, but I shall quote briefly from page 3:
In connection with our request we wish it to be clearly understood that the subvention asked for is with reference to the displacement of United States coal only and does not contemplate a straight subvention on all coal shipped to Manitoba from Alberta and eastern British Columbia. Similar arrangements to those employed for the movement of Nova Scotia coal under order in council P.C. 539 could be made for the province of Manitoba and thereby avoid any interference with the present movement of coal to Manitoba from the west.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Kenora is in Ontario; do they not get a cost rate for coal?


George Gibson Coote: They do not, as far as I know; all that coal is going to the railways. I do not think any of this coal is going east of Winnipeg except what is used by the Canadian Pacific Railway. The operators in Alberta are paying a very heavy freight rate on their product to Winnipeg. The rate from Bellevue to Winnipeg is $5.10 per ton. That is a distance of 841 miles. The cost from Fernie to Winnipeg is $5.30 per ton.
I should like to repeat something I said a moment ago: This year the Canadian Pacific coal requirements will be something over half a million tons less than they were a year ago, and certainly that will cut down employment a good deal. Just here I might quote one sentence from a letter which I received from one of the operators recently. He said:
You will readily understand that the subvention is absolutely necessary if we are even going to approximate last year's working time and if that fails, there is going to be more distress among the workers than ever.
I should like to mention also, Mr. Speaker, that I have received numerous telegrams and letters from the different locals of the miners' union in that area, all asking that this subvention be granted. I believe the secretary of the operators' association wrote to the minister suggesting that this arrangement might be made for a period of three years, which would give the operators time to prove that their coal is just as good as some of the American coal which finds so much favour in the Winnipeg market. The word "Pocahontas" when used in connection with bituminous coal,

seems to be like the word "Keen's" when applied to mustard; we know there are other good brands of coal on the market, but if a person can say "this is Pocahontas coal" it seems to sell right away. I believe that if this subvention could be granted for a period of three years Canadian bituminous coal would establish itself in Winnipeg.
Some objection may be taken to this proposal because of the cost it will entail, and I recognize the fact that this matter should be carefully considered on that account. However, I should like to direct attention to the fact that up to the year 1924 the government received $1,051,000 in royalties from the mines I have mentioned. I do not know what these royalties would amount to since that year, but from rentals, royalties and the sale of certain coal lands, the government received from the companies in that district practically $1,500,000 up to the year 1924. I am sorry my figures are not up to date.
Then I have one other suggestion to make in regard to the coal industry. I think it will be generally admitted that in no other industry in Canada, taking it over a long period of years, has there been so much unemployment on the average as there has been in the coal industry. I am going to suggest to the government, in addition to the two suggestions I have made already, that they appoint a royal commission to investigate this coal industry. This was done in Great Britain some years ago, and I think it is largely as a result of that action that the present government in the old country have introduced some very drastic changes affecting the coal industry there. The appointment of this commission has been requested by the All Canadian Congress of Labour and also by the Mine Workers' Union of Canada. I have both resolutions here; the one passed by the All Canadian Congress of Labour reads as follows:
Whereas for a decade the Canadian coal mining industry has been subjected to such abnormal depression as to reduce the mining community to extreme poverty, due largely to the lack of coordination of supply and demand, with waste of labour power and natural resources; be it
Resolved that this congress call upon the government to appoint a royal commission to investigate conditions in the industry and to find a remedy.
I wish to quote briefly from an editorial which appeared in the Canadian Unionist, with regard to this proposal. The editorial states:
A careful inquiry by a royal commission might therefore point the way to such improvements in organization as would not only raise the mine worker from the coolie status but also add immeasurably to the wealth of the country.

Unemployment-Mr. Johnstone
The state of the coal mining industry has recently been given close study by the government of Great Britain, and reorganization of both production and distribution has been decided on, with restraint of wasteful competition, as the most practicable immediate reform. On a smaller scale, the industry in Canada is in much the same condition as in Great Britain, and it is believed that an official inquiry, by a royal commission, would be the most effective means af ascertaining the cause of the present distress among the miners and of evolving a remedy.
Now I wish to quote the resolution passed by the Mine Workers' Union of Canada, which is as follows:
We request that a royal commission be appointed immediately with a view to stabilizing the coal industry as a whole, by investigating the living conditions, sanitation, discrimination against outside purchasing of goods and necessities, "closed" or "company owned" towns, cost of living in the coal camps as compared with the cities, marketing and distribution of coal, etc., all with a view of alleviating the present distress and poverty among the miners and their families in Alberta and eastern British Columbia.
Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that there is real distress among many of our miners. Recently I received a letter which told of the conditions in one town, where the miners were so poor they were not able to pay for their milk. The milkman notified the mounted police that he was not going to deliver milk to a large number of these families any longer, as he said he must have money for his milk in order to pay for the feed he gave his dairy cows. One cannot blame the milkman, but if the miners are in such dire circumstances that they cannot afford to purchase milk for their children, I think this government might very well appoint a royal commission to examine thoroughly into the coal industry and make such recommendation as they may see fit for the improvement of the status of the people engaged in that industry. I think the responsibility in this case is primarily on the Dominion rather than on the provincial government, because as I see the situation in Alberta the trouble has been caused largely through the unfortunate results of our immigration policy. The majority of the men who consider themselves capable miners are immigrants, and I think a majority of these immigrants came to this country under the guise of agricultural labourers. I think there is no question at all but that the present situation has been brought about largely as a result of our immigration policy. Therefore I do not feel that I should make any apology whatever for asking the Dominion government to
take the responsibility of dealing with this whole question of relief to the unemployed miners, rather than to ask the province to assume that responsibility.


Mr. L. W. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
say a few words with regard to the amendment now before the house. This is a very important matter which seriously affects my constituency, which is largely made up of miners and labourers.
Several theories have been advanced in the hope of solving this unemployment problem. A few days ago, in looking over some literature, I came across a theory which I thought might be applicable to my constituency, and perhaps to some others throughout the country. It was called1 the theory of underconsumption, or the failure of consumption, to keep up with the swelling current of production. The writer thought this was the best solution of this unemployment problem, and certainly it has to dlo with conditions which exist in my own constituency,
Some two months ago a conference Was held between the operators and the miners over a question of wages, and after a great deal of deliberation they decided upon a contract. A referendum was taken a few days ago and the contract was upheld by quite a large majority, so that to-day the people of Nova Scotia have a contract rate which will continue for two years. But where is the employment to come from to provide those wages? We could produce more coal in Cape Breton if we had a market. Last summer our principal pit was working with but a single shift, and this year our mines have been working only one day and a half per week, simply because we did not have markets for the coal we could produce. I feel that I am perfectly justified in placing the blame for this state of affairs upon the fiscal policy of the Dominion government.
In 1929 we imported into Canada 4,019,917 tons of anthracite coal, and 13,707,543 tons of bituminous coal. When such a flood of coal is imported into a coal producing country like Canada, is it any wonder that the operators, and also the men dependent upon their industry for work, are discouraged? That importation represents $2,000,000 in wages, and it means less employment for our Canadian workmen. But the government is doing absolutely nothing to relieve this situation' or to prevent the enormous inflow of coal, and therefore I think I have a perfect right to put the blame upon the government fiscal policy.

Unemployment-Mr. Johnstone
Had the government fully implemented the report of the Duncan commission, considerable assistance would have been given to the maritime provinces. For many years we in the maritime provinces have been trying to have coke ovens erected throughout the country, and have tried to educate the Canadian people in the use of coke instead of hard coal. A bill to that effect was presented in this house, but nothing ever came of it. How can we expect to do anything when coke is allowed to enter this country free of duty, as well as American coal to be used in the manufacture of coke. Can we expect any help from a government which permits such conditions to exist?
I believe that if this government would offer assistance to the provinces it would be accepted. My own province has enacted the Women's Allowance Act, which allows 860 to $70 per month to any woman who is unable to work and support her children. If the Dominion government would take the lead in this matter, it would assist the provinces very materially, but after hearing the remarks made a few days ago by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the effect that he would not vote five cents to a Tory government, I do not see where there is much chance <of our receiving any assistance towards tha relief of unemployment. However, Mr. Speaker, there is always a bright side to everything. The bright side to this question .3 the knowledge that within a very short time we will have a government that will see that justice is done to the provinces of tha Dominion irrespective of their political faith.
Unemployment would be reduced through the use of our own raw materials, instead of their being sent out to the United States. Why not manufacture the finished article with our own material and use the labour of our own people? Some hon. member has said that the United States, which is a high protection country, has a great deal of unemployment. I can well understand why that is true, because a great number of those unemployed are Canadians who left their homes to look for work in other countries. The United States has taken a stand in this matter. The city of Detroit, where there are a great number of Canadians, has taken a definite stand on the subject. There are many people in that city from Cape Breton, and I have many letters telling of the inability to obtain work, in many cases the writers not having the fare to come back again. Many nurses in the hospitals of Detroit have been dismissed, although I

have heard since that some have been reinstated on account of their efficiency. The United States cannot be blamed for taking this stand. They say: "We cannot give you foreigners any work, we must protect our own people. Surely j'ou have a government in Canada and you can obtain work there. Go back to your government and ask them to give you work; do not come to us." The United States government are protecting theii people, and our government should protect our people.
Some hon. member has mentioned the displacement of the workman by the machine. Scientific inventions are found to-day in practically every industrial centre. It would be hard to find to-day an old fashioned handpick miner in our mining districts. The only solution of this problem is more factories and industrial centres. We should build up our highways, and carry on other construction work, so that our men could obtain emploj'-ment. Whatever solution is offered for this problem, the government of the day must take the lead, whether it be b>r the appointment of a commission or the creation of industries to provide work. The majoriy of our workingmen want work; they do not want charity. How can we do this? It could be done by the development of the great resources in which Canada abounds. Perhaps we will always have more or less unemployment, but if this condition can be relieved to any extent it is our duty to offer that relief. The hidden wealth of this great country of ours should be brought to light to provide work for our workingmen. They want work but they are unable to obtain it. It seems strange that this government cannot afford a certain amount of employment to our own people so that they need not go to foreign countries in search of employment. If that were done, then we could say in perfect truth that we are not able to say to-day-Canada for Canadians.
Mr. ROBERT K. SMITH (Cumberland): Mr. Speaker, I am in absolute accord with both the spirit and the letter of the amendment moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). I believe the government should not only take immediate action to deal with the question of unemployment at present existing in certain sections of Canada, but strive to work out some formula to anticipate the grave question of unemployment which it and all succeeding governments will encounter in this country from time to time. As the hon. member for North Winnipeg very properly said, it is always our most

Unemployment-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
vital question. I had no doubt that in respect to this matter the government would trot out and hide behind the British North America Act, as it usually does, and which it did on this occasion; nevertheless, the problem of unemployment is still to be solved.
I am a firm believer in protecting the working classes in this country. This seems to me to be one of the greatest national questions we have to deal with. Like all matters of social legislation, it is important, far-reaching and expensive, and I believe the attempt to shoulder these heavy responsibilities on the provinces is unjust and grossly unfair. Take, for instance, the question of old age pensions. All heartily agree with the principle of old age pensions and are anxious to have the legislation enacting it implemented in the nine provinces of Canada. But how can that be fairly adjusted in a provincial way when the cost to one province is as high as 35 per cent of its total revenue, the cost to another only 10 per cent, and the cost to other provinces, I understand, in western Canada, as low as 2 per cent? The house may think what it likes, but it is quite apparent that this is the happy day of advanced social legislation for our working classes. That being admittedly the case, some of the smaller provinces are not financially capable of keeping pace with this very worthy legislation to assist our working people.
Old age pensions and unemployment are questions that must be dealt with sooner or later if we are to have a happy and contented country. In my opinion-and I am giving my own opinion-the only way in which they can be effectively dealt with is nationally. The government will say: Why, if you saddle us with aid to highways, aid to technical education, public health and matters pertaining to social legislation, you will exhaust our treasury. My answer to that is that under the British North America Act the federal authority is vested with all the elastic sources of revenue and can so regulate its revenues to meet any financial exigencies. The provinces cannot do that. In the final accounting a tax removed from a province and imposed by the federal authority works no injustice to any taxpayer. The burden is none the heavier, and I am of opinion that the only effective and successful way of giving the working classes in Canada a real chance to enjoy the privileges and advantages of modern social legislation is to place those matters of which I have spoken under federal control and authority.
It seems to me that altogether too much stress is laid upon the division of the burden
of taxation as between the federal and provincial- authorities in hewing so close to the line of technical interpretation of the British North America Act. If a citizen of a province who is also a citizen of the Dominion is relieved of a provincial tax and that burden is absorbed by the federal government, no injustice is worked. The citizen does not pay any more, but it certainly would have the effect of standardizing, harmonizing and equalizing civilization and advancement in all the provinces, which, after all, make up the Dominion.
We have under the present allotment of jurisdiction under the British North America Act between the federal and provincial authorities, two very unfortunate sets of circumstances: first, the (financial inequalities of the provinces; secondly, the more financially fortunate of the provinces being able to provide legislative relief of a social character to their citizens, which relief is denied in other provinces. This creates a state of unfairness and inequality that is unhealthy and the very antithesis of what I understand to be a united and contented Canada. Could anything be more anomalous than to find in one province the citizens enjoying, say old age pensions, unemployment insurance, mother's allowance, minimum wage laws, eight-hour day and other rights, and in another province of the same Canada, the same confederacy, the same union, the citizens enjoying none of these benefits? That state of affairs can be tolerated only so long, just long enough to break both the spirit and the letter of confederation.
Questions of a national character must of necessity be dealt with by the federal authorities and I consider the question of unemployment fundamentally and primarily one of national import. In this connection my mind goes back to the treaty of peace signed at Versailles on June 28, 1.919, where the following will be found as part of that great document. I am quoting part XIII of the treaty, section 1, which reads:
Whereas the League of Nations has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such a peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice;
And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required; as. for example, by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, the regulation of the labour supply-
1342	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
And, mark you, Mr. Speaker,
[DOT]-the prevention of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment, the protection of children, young persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own, recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organization of vocational and technical education and other measures;
Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries.
Following that, article 387 of the treaty sets up a permanent organization for the promotion of the objects set forth above, and in the annex to chapter IV of article 424, it specifies the place of the first meeting as Washington and it supplies for that meeting the agenda which includes among other things the application of the principle of the eight-hour day or the forty-eight hour week, the question of preventing or providing against unemployment. It goes on to mention many other matters of social legislation of importance in this connection. Section 2 of article 427, under "General Principles of the Treaty of Peace", reads as follows:
The high contracting parties, recognizing that the^ well-being, physical, moral and intellectual, of industrial wage earners is of supreme international importance, have framed, in order to further this great end, the permanent machinery provided for in section 1 and associated with that of the League of Nations.
They recognize that differences of climate, habits and customs of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate attainment. But, holding as they do, that labour should not be regarded merely as an article of commerce, they think that there are methods and principles for regulating labour conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply, so far as their special circumstances will permit.
Among these methods and principles, the following seem to the high contracting parties to be of special and urgent importance.
Then it goes on to enunciate nine such principles, most of which were enumerated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the speech that he delivered the other day. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, would any sane person contend for one minute that these important and worthy matters of social legislation are not national in character? Furthermore, the provinces as such were not signatories to the treaty of Versailles. The federal authority had that grave duty to perform, and having gone that far should continue responsibility and make some effort to conform to their sacred pronouncements and their national obligations.
(Mr. R. K. Smith.]
Back in 1922 I had the privilege of appearing before a Senate committee on unemployment, and I was greatly impressed with the evidence of one of the representatives of labour whose name I have for the moment forgotten. He said in part that while the war was in progress and recruits were being sought, solemn pledges were freely given that when the war was over and victory had been won, there would be a general reconstruction and reestablishment of people and conditions in this country. What class, he asked, needed reconstruction and reestablishment? Certainly not the wealthy. It was meant for one class and one classe alone, the one that needed it -the working class. Perhaps if there had been a measure at least of conscription of wealth as well as of men during the war, we would be in a better position to attain that ideal to-day.
I believe, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come when this vital problem so seriously affecting our working classes should be treated in a spirit of national consciousness and righteousness, from a broad and uniform viewpoint, and with the fact always staring us in the face that our commitments are clear and great, our obligations unfulfilled, and as a consequence our national honour at stake.


Mr. T. E. SIMPSON (West Algoma):: In
rising to support the amendment of my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), I believe that the question of unemployment is one in which every hon. member of this house should be particularly interested. I believe that the people of this country are anxious that a solution of this problem should be found. They realize that the greatest asset of any nation is its citizenship, that the men who carry the dinner pail, the working men, are those who are largely responsible for producing the wealth of any country, and that a government that does not provide a policy that will enable these working men to be gainfully employed is not measuring up to its full responsibility.
I entirely agree with the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) in his statement this afternoon that in a country such as Canada we are bound to have a certain amount of seasonal unemployment. I cannot agree with him, however, when he states that the men who are employed during the season of navigation are found among the ranks of the unemployed when navigation is closed, and that they are seeking assistance during the winter months. It is true that many of them are unemployed during the

Unemployment-Mr. Simpson
winter months, but we find very few of them seeking assistance, because they figure that the wages which they receive during the season of navigation will be quite ample to take care of them during the winter months.


Mr. CANTLEY:: They are fresh water
sailors anyway.


Thomas Edward Simpson: Yes. That we have an
abnormal unemployment situation at the present time has been admitted, I think, by practically every hon. gentleman who has participated in this discussion, with the exception of the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). We have had speaking in this debate representatives from the west and from as far east as Sydney, Cape Breton, and we have heard them describe the conditions of unemployment in their particular localities. Some of them cited cases of extreme hardship. Yet we find that the ministers who have spoken have offered no real solution for this unemployment problem.
What is the resolution before the house? It simply asks that immediate action be taken by the government to deal with the question of unemployment. A broad resolution, a resolution one would imagine that should be accepted unanimously by this house; but we find the Prime Minister devoting the greater portion of his speech to an endeavour to prove that we are enjoying great prosperity in the Dominion of Canada and that there is no abnormal unemployment situation. We have the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), more familiar with the labour situation because of the position that he occupies as head of that department, admitting that we have more than the ordinary amount of unemployment, but offering no solution. Both of them, as well as the Minister of the Interior, are going to vote against this amendment if it comes to a vote, thus shelving the question for the time being, washing their hands of all responsibility and passing the responsibility over to the municipalities and the provinces.
There can be no doubt that the municipalities and the provinces have some responsibility in connection with unemployment, but in my judgment, Mr. Speaker, the federal government also has responsibility in connection with the unemployment situation as we find it to-day. If under a policy of immigration such as this government has maintained, immigrants are brought into this country and find their way into various municipalities without those municipalities asking for them, and where there is no work for them to do, will anyone contend that it is the responsibility of those municipalities either to find work for those immigrants or to care for them until such time as work can be found for them? That surely is a responsibility that should rest upon the government that admitted those immigrants to this country.
My hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) in the course of his excellent speech stated that in one of the western provinces at least sixty-one per cent of those who were receiving relief were immigrants. The Manitoba Free Press, in an editorial, states that of the number registering for assistance in the city of Vancouver, seventy per cent are immigrants. Surely the federal government have some responsibility to those who have come in as immigrants and are to-day a public charge.
I am opposed to the present system of immigration. I do not believe this country should spend, as it has been spending during the last several years, an average of over $3,000,000 annually for the purpose of bringing in immigrants, when at the same time our own citizens have been leaving the country by the tens of thousands, following our raw material over to the United States in order to secure employment in fabricating it into the finished product, much of which is shipped back into this country. What we need is a policy to provide more jobs for our own people. Once that is done there will be no difficulty about immigration. Once we have more jobs than w'e have Canadians to fill them, you will find desirable immigrants rapping at your door asking for admission. Then you will not need to spend any money on advertisements such as those my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Hay) read to the house this afternoon.
Might I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government is responsible for unemployment from another aspect? The fiscal policy of this government, their policy of tinkering with the tariff, has been responsible for a certain amount of the unemployment that we are suffering from at the present time. Take, for example, agricultural implements and automobiles. The trade treaties that this government have negotiated and their downward revisions of the tariff have made it easier for the products of other countries to come in here and compete with the products of Canadian labour. Let me draw the attention of the house to the effect of the policy of the government in reducing the duty on agricultural implements, which they provided for in the budget of 1924. Immediately after the budget had been presented to the house a deputation composed of manufacturers of agricultural

Unemployment-Mr. Simpson
implements-including our present ambassador in Washington, Mr. Massey-appeared before the government and pleaded for some relief, stating that the proposed reduction of duties would ruin their industry. They succeeded in getting relief, the government making provision for the free entry of all the steel that goes into the manufacture of agricultural implements, and for a drawback of duty on many other commodities entering into their manufacture. What was the result? An increase in the import of agricultural implements from the United States in the fiscal year of 1929 over 1925 of about $33,722,000; the imports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1925 being $6,428,549 and for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929, $40,150,020. Who got the benefit? The workmen in the United States, because the farmers in this country did not reap any benefit as a result of the reduction in the duty on agricultural implements. My hon. friend from London (Mr. White) in a speech he delivered in the session of 1928-the very year for which these figures are given, the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929-quoted the prices of agricultural implements from the price lists of the International Harvester Company, which showed conclusively that notwithstanding the reduction in the duty no benefit had accrued to our farmers by way of a reduction in the price of their implements. Then let us take the reduction of the duty on automobiles in 1926. When the reduction was announced in the budget our automobile manufacturers appeared before the government and stated that the reduction would ruin their industry. The government treated them just as they had treated the agricultural implement manufacturers-gave them a drawback of the duty on some of their raw materials, and the remainder of it admitted free of duty. Ihis reduction of duty produced a similar effect, the increase in our imports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929, over the fiscal year ending March 31, 1927, amounting to $41,314,000; or a total increase in the imports of these two items alone of $75,036,000.
Figuring on the basis laid down by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) last session, when he stated that for every dollar of value of the manufactured article fifty cents represented labour, and taking an average wage of SI ,500 a year, these additional purchases from the United States would have provided employment in this country for 25,000 workmen, and those workmen could comfortably support a city of
125,000	population. And it must be borne in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I have taken into account only the raw material that entered into the manufacture of these agricultural 
implements and automobiles. Their raw material is the finished product of other manufacturers in this country, for instance, the finished product of the primary steel manufacturer. I could cite the conditions obtaining in that industry at the present time, but I refrain from doing so.
I submit, sir, that having regard to the figures that I have given the policy of this government has a direct bearing on the unemployment situation as we find it to-day and therefore we might very reasonably expect the government to accept the amendment as proposed by my hon. friend from North Winnipeg; but they are passing the responsibility on to the provinces. A question of this nature should be treated on its merits, it should be above partisanship, but we find the Minister of Labour trying to blame the premier of Ontario for not proceeding more rapidly with highway construction, claiming that that would have provided against a certain amount of unemployment; but the Minister of Labour himself voted with the Prime Minister against the resolution that was moved in this house to grant federal assistance to the construction of highways, particularly the completion of the trans-Canada highway. I think everyone will admit that if that work had been proceeded with it would certainly have provided employment for a considerable number of men.
I must say I was amazed at the statement the Prime Minister made in this house the other day. He said that so far as the government was concerned with respect to this question of unemployment it would not give a five cent piece to any province where there was a Tory government. Was there ever an exhibition of more extreme partisanship than that indicated by the statement of the right hon. gentleman? Instead of treating this great humanitarian question on its merits he tells the people of five provinces of this Dominion that because in the exercise of their citizenship in a free country they decided to elect Conservative governments, they cannot expect from this government a five cent piece for the relief of unemployment. I suppose that is the reason the government turned down the proposals for assistance in the construction of highways and1 for technical education. The people of Canada have the right to expect something better than that from their Prime Minister. I submit that this government, by reason of its immigration and fiscal policies, is largely responsible for the unemployment problem as it exists to-day; for that reason they should accept this amendment and assume their full responsibility as a government to deal with this question.

Unemployment-Mr. Quinn


Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: I do not intend to take up much of the time of this house in speaking to the amendment of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), but I feel it incumbent upon me to say something in regard to it, and to make a few humble suggestions to the house as to what I consider would remedy or alleviate the unemployment situation in Canada.
The hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Johnstone) referred to the steel and coal industry of Nova Scotia. May I point out to the house that four years-ago, in 1926, the Duncan commission made its report to parliament, and in that report it recommended that the steel and coal industries should receive the favourable consideration of this government. After four years of waiting the^ government has failed to implement the recommendations contained in the Duncan report with regard to these two very important industries. I can tell the house that the steel workers of Canada, particularly in the province of Nova Scotia, are becoming restless, and as a proof of that statement I am going to -read to you an article not from the Tory press but from the Ottawa Citizen of Friday, April 4, 1930. It is a Canadian Press despatch and is as follows:
A resolution urging that adequate tariff protection be afforded the steel industry in order to give employment to citizens of Canada, reduce privation and alleviate the unemployment situation which is singularly acute, has been forwarded to Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Premier of Canada, and members of his cabinet by the general works committee of the employees representation plan, representing over three thousand steel workers employed by the Dominion Iron and Steel Company.
I ask you, sir, if that is not worthy of the consideration of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heen-an), of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and of this government? We have heard a resolution from the workers praying that the government do something to alleviate the unemployment -situation in this country. On Friday last the member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson) pointed out that ships for the Canadian government to be used in Canadian trade and industry might well be built in Canada. During the course of the hon. gentleman's remarks he was interrupted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), but in a gentlemanly fashion. The minister on that occasion pointed out that it would cost nearly 40 per cent more to build these ships in Canadian shipyards. May I say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is my friend, and I admire him in many ways; on that occasion he was making a statement in favour of protection, and I am told) the
minister is a protectionist. He pointed out that it would cost 40 per cent more, and in my opinion he made an argument for a 40 per cent tariff on foreign built ships. If we pay a higher rate for ships built in Canada, where does the difference in cost arise? The materials are purchased in our own country, the ship from the keel up is built of materials produced in our own country, and the building of the ship gives employment to vast numbers of workmen in the steel and iron trades, the different metal industries, the furnishing industry, the electrical industry and all other industries which contribute their proportion towards the building of a ship. Do not forget that the most important thing of all is that you are giving employment to thousands of Canadian workmen, and instead of sending your money abroad you are keeping it at home. By the building of those ships in Canada we are buying our own materials from our own citizens, and are giving employment to our native workmen. I ask, sir, if that is not one of the best arguments with respect to the amendment now before the house. I may say that I pointed out this fact to the government during the debate in this house on June 10 of -last year, and at that time I advocated that Canadian ships required for the Canadian government and its different departments should be built in Canadian shipyards.
A couple of months after my return to Halifax the International Association of Machinists on August 2-2, 1929, passed a resolution in the following words:
We wish to call your attention to the matter of steel shipbuilding in Canada. You will readily understand that the federal government is responsible for furnishing transportation facilities for our commerce, both on land and water. It has been the policy of all Dominion governments to subsidize our railways, both by grants of lands and moneys. They have been very successful in inducing companies to erect plants to construct locomotives and passenger cars of the largest types built anywhere, and at the present time we have two of the largest railway systems in the world, which are able to get all their rolling stock built in Canada.
Now we wish to get your assistance in inducing the Dominion government to have all ships, whether passenger or freight, that are used by the railway systems and government departments, built in Canada. The Canadian Pacific Railway system has had a number of ships built in Great Britain at a cost of over $50,000,000. The Canadian National Steamships, a government concern, had five ships built at a cost of $8,000,000, and have given contracts for three more ships to cost $5,000,000, all of which are to be built in Great Britain.
This means that over $63,000,000 of Canadian moneys have been sent across to Great Britain to build ships, when, if these ships had been

Unemployment-Mr. Quinn
built in Canada, it would mean that the amount of money would have been put into the pockets of shipyard workers of Canada.
It is easy to see the reason for this policy of having ships built in Great Britain. The standard of living is higher in Canada, because the Canadian worker demands and receives higher wages. A comparison of Canadian and United States methods in having ships built is suggested. The United States government, in placing contracts for the carrying of United States mail stipulates that they must be carried on ships built in the United States, and they have cooperated with the steamship companies in placing orders for ships in the United States shipyards. Some of the steamship companies have paid over twice as much for ships to be built in United States shipyards rather than send their orders to Great Britain or Germany.
If the Americans can do that, why cannot the Canadian government and Canadian companies do that which tends to keep the money in circulation in Canada? Therefore be it resolved that we adopt the following resolution:
Whereas, during the Great War the building of steel ships was found to be possible in Canada, and taking into consideration the immense resources of this country, the development of which is reaching enormous proportions;
Be it further resolved, that the trades and labour organizations use every effort to bring pressure to bear upon the government to take the necessary steps to encourage the steel shipbuilding industry in Canada.
That is a union, sir, in my own city of Halifax. They are not wrong in their views and they are not sectional in their outlook either. I should like to point out that similar resolutions have been adopted by unions in Quebec and Ontario. I have another resolution here, which is dated at Halifax, March 15, of the present year:
Felix P. Quinn, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
I have been instructed by Halifax Lodge No. 765, International Association of Machinists, to forward to you the following resolution.
Whereas the increased business activity of the maritime provinces especially between the mainland and Prince Edward Island calls for greater transportation facilities on the Canadian National railway and demands the building of a car ferry to be equipped with facilities for the transportation of automobiles which the present car ferry does not possess.
And whereas there are shipbuilding firms with yards equipped for building ships such as the car ferry required in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, it is for this reason that Halifax Lodge No. 765, International Association of Machinists wish to place themselves on record as protesting against the placing of the contract to build the car ferry to any firm of shipbuilders outside the maritime provinces.
Respectfully yours,
E. J. Rudge,
Recording Secretary Lodge No. 765, International Association of Machinists.
In the discussion of a few days ago the question of the Prince Edward oar ferry was
IMr. Quinn.}
dealt with by the Minister of Labour, who told us that that contract had been awarded to a firm in Quebec at a very much higher figure than the government would have had to pay in Great Britain or some other European country. I oan quite appreciate that statement; I know how true it is and I must congratulate the minister, if he had anything to do with having that contract placed in a Canadian shipyard. I regret very much, however, that since the steamer was to ply between two of the maritime ports, the contract was not placed with the Halifax shipyards, because I understand that the difference in the contract price was only some 15,000 or $6,000. Having regard to that fact, I hope the contract price will be adhered to. I hope we will not have a situation similar to that which arose a few days ago, when we were dealing with the estimates for the province of Quebec having to do with harbours and rivers. There was an item of some $27,000 for some firm in Quebec, and when the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) was asked for an explanation of the item he told the committee it was because that amount of loss had been sustained by the firm under a contract with the government. If after the ship is completed this shipbuilding company comes to the house with a request for a grant from the government to cover a loss sustained under that contract, if I am here I will bring the matter to the attention of every hon. member. That would be unfair competition; if firms are allowed to tender and contract with this government at an unreasonably low figure, in the hope of coming back to parliament and asking for a subsequent grant to make up the loss, I contend that it is a very poor principle and a very unbusinesslike way for the government to deal with such matters.
With regard to the resolution passed by the Halifax branch of the machinists' union, I may point out that under date of February 22 a memorandum on the need of tariff protection for the shipbuilding industry of Canada, addressed to the federal government and members of parliament by Gaspard Langlois, president of the Shipworkers' Union of Lauzon, Quebec, along similar lines, appeared in the Montreal Gazette. Towards the end of the article I find the following:
The shipbuilding industry of Canada is going through a very serious crisis, says Mr. Langlois. Former prosperous yards have hardly sufficient work to justify their maintenance. And while Canadian shipyards are nearly silent, Canadian companies are constantly awarding shipbuilding contracts to other countries.
I point this out to the government for their consideration, and ask them whether the unemployment situation would not have been

Unemployment-Mr. Lapierre
greatly alleviated if these contracts for Canadian ships had been placed with Canadian shipyards. The article continues:
Nearly $100,000,000, it is said, has been invested in the effort to reestablish shipbuilding in Canada: most of it has been sunk, apparently. Of course, the effort to revive Canadian shipbuilding involved considerable investment in subsidiary industries, which, also is all at sea.
The hope of the Lauzon workers that the "Canadian shipbuilder will be given protection equal to that enjoyed by his neighbour the American shipbuilder" is not, unfortunately, likely to be realized while the present government is in powder, anyway.
I must admit that I share the views of that gentleman.
I listened to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) telling the house that in his opinion the tariff would not remedy the situation, and he made the statement that high tariff countries were not without their unemployment problems. Let me point out to him the difference between England and France. England is a low tariff country, and has nearly 2,000,000 people unemployed at the present time. Contrast that situation with France which is a high tariff country, and which has only 1,500 unemployed. France is a country with five times the population of Canada but with only 1,500 unemployed, of which about 1,200 are in the city of Paris. I give those figures on the best authority; I have taken them from the latest issue of the Commercial Intelligence Journal, which is issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce under the administration of the Hon. James Mal-solm. On page 512 is an article by Hercule Barre, the Canadian trade commissioner, dealing with the commercial and financial situation in France. He says:
According to official figures on February 18, the number of unemployed in France totalled 1,521, of which 1,134 were in the Paris district.
If a protectionist tariff is so beneficial for France, then this government should consider whether a similar protectionist tariff would not be favourable for this country and tend toward the relief of unemployment in the Dominion of Canada.
The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) the other day pointed out that the trend in the west was toward protection. I believe that the trend in the whole of Canada is toward protection. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) showed me a report which stated that the Liberal candidate for that constituency had declared that he was for protection, and that the Liberal candidate for the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard also had declared himself a protectionist and had denounced the new
tariff amendments of the United States. The workingmen of Canada want protection for the industries which give them employment, but I am afraid that they will look in vain for relief from a government which has failed after four years to implement the recommendations of the Duncan report with regard to coal and steel. These workingmen will have to wait because of their failure to provide adequate protection to our industries, particularly to shipbuilding. A remedy can hardly be expected from a government which lacks solidarity and which is so diversified with regard to its fiscal policy. That remedy will be lacking so long as we have a prime minister who holds such narrow views as were displayed when he told this house and this country that he would not allow his government to give a single five cent piece to any province which had a Tory premier.


Mr. E. A. LAPIERRE (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I have decided at this late moment to take part in this discussion because of some of the speeches to which I have listened to-night. Perhaps I am in a happier situation than the majority of the members of this House of Commons, for I represent a constituency which has enjoyed more prosperity during the last two years than at any period since confederation.
The situation which has been depicted with so much gloom by our Conservative friends is but a temporary one. Considerable improvement had taken place during the season of 1929 when compared with the conditions which existed in 1921, when this government took over the reins of office. During the summer season of 1929 this country enjoyed the greatest era of prosperity that it had known since confederation. Never in the history of this nation have we enjoyed greater prosperity, greater development and greater contentment, and nowhere else in the world could a labouring class be found who enjoyed a higher standing of living than did the people of Canada during the year 1929. A reaction occurred late in the fall arising from conditions over which no government could have control. Shortly after that reaction occurred ws were told by the leading financiers, bankers and industrialists, both in the public press and elsewhere, that Canada was enjoying the greatest prosperity of any civilized country in the world. The causes of that reaction are known to every hon. member on the other side of the house. The main cause was the inability to .move the wheat crop of 1929, an abnormal situation for which no government could make provision. That situation was

Unemployment-Mr. Lapierre
intensified by the stock market crash which occurred in the United States, another cause which could not be foreseen or prevented. This condition arose during our period of seasonal unemployment and it will disappear within the course of the next few months. I am sure that our Conservative friends dread to see the result of the Liberal policy as it will apply to conditions in Canada after this temporary period of depression.
We have heard a great deal about the situation in the United States as well as in Canada, but I think the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has depicted a situation which should give more concern to hon. members than the temporary condition now existing in this country. The unemployment in Canada is not to be compared with the unemployment which prevails in every other part of the world. I have before me an article which appeared in the Literary Digest of March 29, in which conditions in other parts of the world are clearly set forth. This article shows quite definitely that the conditions in other countries are much worse than those in Canada. The article, which is entitled A World of the Workless, reads as follows:
In every big industrial country of the world the tragic tide of unemployment is said to be rising rapidly.
A few years ago, we are told, it was estimated that the total of unemployed was 20,000,000. The figure now is believed to be nearly 30,000,000. So declares the London Daily Herald, a labour organ and the official newspaper of the Labour party.
Recent reports from America and Germany, it adds, coupled with the serious situation in Britain, have emphasized the fact that the crisis extends over the globe.
Japan is no exception, for business depression is widespread there, factories are shutting down, and this newspaper continues:
"A short time ago the late government estimated the total workless at 300,000. To-day the figure exceeds 800,000, and it is forecast that the million mark will quickly be passed.
Labour organizations in Japan are drafting remedial measures, and the government is preparing a scheme of unemployment insurance.
As in Japan, so elsewhere. The latest estimates of the unemployed in the United States vary, but some put the total at the enormous figure of 6.000,000.
Mr. William Green, president of the American Federation of Labour, says the 'danger point' has been reached. He declares that 22 per cent of organized labour is idle, and that 43 per cent of the building workers are out of work."
If we turn to Europe, the Daily Herald goes on to say, we find a similar condition. At the end of December, it informs us, Germany had
4,583,000	idle organized workers.
During a week in February, it is pointed out, no fewer than 30,000 were added to the Germans receiving unemployment benefit. We read then:
[Mr. Lapierre. 3
, "Italy, whose industrial activity is comparatively small, has nearly half a million workers recorded as unemployed.
France is the only known exception among countries which have large-scale industry, though here the peculiar circumstances make comparison difficult."
I wish to call the attention of some of my hon friends to the peculiar situation existing in France at the present time:
"No recent figures are available for Russia, the latest were for October, 1928, when nearly two millions of the 11,000,000 organized workers were idle.
Claims have been made that industry in Russia will absorb 5,000,000 new workers in the next two years, but that is not fact but prophecy."
Economists have suggested that the unemployment was temporary, and that when the world has settled down to postwar conditions, production and trade would right themselves. That view is now discredited, and the outlook is regarded with apprehension.
That depicts the worldwide situation at the present moment with regard to labour, leaving Canada in a far better industrial and financial position than any other country in the civilized world.
We have heard a great deal about conditions in the United States. Some of my hon. friends on the other side, using the old familiar slogan, were still harping on Canadians leaving to go to the United States. I am now quoting from the same periodical, the Literary Digest of March 22 of this year, as follows:
Washington reports two elderly women, a policeman and half a dozen demonstrators hurt, and thirteen persons arrested when police used tear gas and blackjacks to suppress a riot which followed a Communist demonstration in front of the White House.
Cleveland reports more than 100 injured by flying police-clubs when "a cursing, jeering crowd of 10,000" battled several hundred police "after a Communist unemployment demonstration had been conducted without violence of any kind."
Detroit reports fourteen persons, including one policeman, sent to hospitals, and thirty-one arrested when mounted police prevented an unemployment rally.
Pittsburgh reports five men sent to hospitals, severely beaten, and twelve arrested when a Communist parade broke up in a riot.
Milwaukee reports forty-two men and youths arrested when police intervened in a demonstration by 1,500 unemployed men, and then raided Communist headquarters.
Seattle reports one man injured, and twelve arrested when police dispersed a crowd of 500, led by Communists.
Buffalo reports four Communist speakers arrested when they refused to leave Lafayette square, where a Red demonstration had been planned.

Unemployment-Mr. Robinson
New Haven reports police thwarted three attempts by a group of Communists to storm the city hall to present an employment petition to the mayor.
Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Francisco report Communist parades held without disorder.
That is the situation into which a high protective tariff has brought the United States, and had the same policy been put into force in Canada a similar condition would have been created here. But what I have been quoting so far has been from United States periodicals. I will now quote from the Standard of March 22 in which are given the results of an interview with R. W. Gould, Secretary of the Canadian Manufacurers' Association. The article, which is headed "Conditions are bad in States, says R. W. Gould," reads:
Conditions in the United States after the had break last fall improved, but another set back has occurred from which a slow recovery is now being made, reported R. W. Gould, secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, in an interview with The Standard this morning upon his return from New York and Boston. Mass.
Undoubtedly, he said, a great deal of unemployment exists and there have been frequent demonstrations by the jobless.
Mr. Gould surveyed the general industrial position and found a far from happy situation in a number of cases. For instance, at Boston, lie heard that the cotton trade is in a pretty bad way with many mills closing down with the intention of reopening in the south.
The boot and shoe situation is also very unsatisfactory, he said. The trade is hard hit by competition from Czechoslovakia, he added. Strangely enough this competition is caused largely by Americans who obtained their experience in Boston and have gone to Slovakia and opened plants there. Labour is cheap and they are pressing hard the American home producers.
The outlook is bad also in the silk and hosiery industries, declared Mr. Gould. This is due largely, he commented, to the disorganized condition of the industries themselves.
The fishing industry, he found, has been fairly steady with both catches and markets good. Some 14 new super trawlers are being built he ascertained and will be launched in the next few months. The Americans, he added, have an eye on the Canadian market.
The tariff situation, he stated, is very disturbing.
In view of the situation, which prevails in Washington at present, are we Liberals not justified in claiming for the Liberal party a policy that has at least maintained a certain amount of prosperity and avoided the grave condition now existing in the United States? Has not the policy which the Liberal party enunciated at its convention in 1919 been carried out to the extent of giving us the most prosperous era this country has ever experienced?
In view of those facts, difficult as our situation is at the present time, I feel that the government is fully able to cope with it, and the people of Canada who realize this condition of affairs will see to it, when the time comes, that the government are returned to power with a larger majority than they at present have in the house.


Mr. S. C. ROBINSON (West Essex):: Mr. Speaker, at this late stage of the debate I will not detain the house very long, but the unemployment situation in the border cities is,
I believe, more acute in proportion to popula-lation than in any other part of Canada; and we also have an international labour situation. One reason why we have so many unemployed in the winter season I trace back to 1926 when the government changed the duties on automobiles. By its action it forced the automobile industry to adopt United States methods of -mass production. Let me illustrate what I mean. If a company planned to manufacture 30,000 cars they would order all their materials; when ready to start they would employ three shifts, each working eight hours a day, push forward the work as quickly as possible, then lay off two shifts and keep the remaining shift going for three days a week. That has been the situation in the border cities for the last two years; indeed some of the industries practically closed up. This means throwing out of employment
5,000	to 6,000 men. We have another situation in regard to which I cannot do better than quote a paragraph from the Border Cities Star of January 30 of this year. It says:
Our greatest difficulty, of course, lies in the fact that the border cities seem to be a mecca for a large part of all the unemployed men in Canada. This is due, probably, to two or three factors. We are widely known as the centre of the Canadian automotive industry, and the automotive industry, it is just as well known, pays attractive wages. Secondly, our community lias had an unusually rapid progress and the news of our expansion has travelled everywhere. Thirdly, we are next door to the United States, and large numbers of people come here from Europe and from all over Canada with the idea of eventually getting across the line. While they are here, of course, they clog the local labour market.
Our charitable institutions and our towns and cities are taxed to the utmost in taking care of the unemployed during the winter. We have down there the Good Fellows, who raise a very large sum every year to take care of the poor. The city of Windsor also spends a large amount each year for the same purpose. In January last the city was taking care of 400 families, providing them with groceries, milk and fuel.

Unemployment-Mr. Robinson
I claim that under such conditions they may reasonably expect some help from the federal government because of the fact that these conditions are caused by the bringing into this country of immigrants by the federal government, and by the change of tariff in the automobile industry which the government made in 1926.
I would urge upon the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) and the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) that they be very careful how they handle the situation on the border. For instance, an order in council was passed on the 7th day of August last, one paragraph of which provides that the Minister of Immigration and Colonization may admit any contract labourer if satisfied that his labour or services are required in Canada. The principle seems to be entirely right, but in practice it is not always followed. For instance, if the combination lock of a safe or vault cannot be opened and an expert has to be called in from Detroit, when he comes over with his tools he is turned back by the immigration officer. Only the other day a man came over from Detroit to do some work for the Ford Motor Company. He had his tools with him, and he was refused admittance into this country. The result was that it was broadcast from a Detroit radio station that night that one American who was going over to Canada to do a day's work had been turned back at the border, and it was pointed out that 8.000 Canadians crossed the border daily to work in Detroit. Many institutions in Detroit are only looking for an opportunity to dismiss Canadians and employ Americans. Let me quote from a letter that I received in this connection from Windsor:
Jerry Buckley (Station WMBC) announced over the radio that an American citizen who had obtained a job with the Ford Motor Company of Canada, on bringing his tools over to go to work, was not allowed to proceed but was turned back to the United States. One of the immigration officers at this port on being asked the question, how they handle these matters, if an American citizen came to Windsor to seek work, stated he would be turned back immediately. In view of the fact that 8,000 Canadians cross the border every day and work in Detroit, and only a few Americans work in this country, think it very inadvisable to follow this policy of turning American citizens back. Think it will do us more harm than good.
That letter was dated the 15th of March. He writes again on the 20th of March, on the letterhead of the Ford Motor Company:
Will say that I am vitally interested in this as I work in Detroit and the matter was called to my attention where I worked, that I had a lot of nerve coming over there and working when their citizens are not allowed to secure 
work in Windsor. I do not know how you feel about the matter, but if you feel as I do, hope you will take this matter up with the Minister of Immigration.
Then he goes on to say:
With 8,000 Canadians crossing the border every day and working in Detroit, I think it rather foolish to keep any American citizens from securing work in Windsor. If they can get work here they are smarter than I am, as I have never been able to get work here, and I take my hat off to any man who can get work here.
(Signed) M. C. McCullough.
I know that our immigration laws have to be carried out, but to my mind this regulation with regard to contract labour should apply only to numbers of men who are brought over on contract, because occasions often arise when an expert is required in connection with the installation of machinery or something of that kind, and there can be no objection to allowing such a man to enter for a day's work or so.
Now I want to show the other side of the case. It is the case of a man who worked with the Hudson-Essex motor car company for four and a half years in Detroit. He was an inspector, and he was discharged because he lived in Windsor and could not produce American citizenship papers. He receives a notice to report at the employment office, and I have here a copy of his discharge certificate, as reproduced in the Border Cities Star of April 1, 1930. It shows that his ability and deportment were good, and that his last operation was working as an inspector. I might point out that 16,000 Hudson-Essex motor cars were shipped into Canada during the past year, valued at least at $15,000,000 I think it a very short-sighted policy on the part of any company doing that much business in Canada to discharge a few Canadians who might be working in their plant at Detroit. As far as doing any work on their cars on this side of the line is concerned, they do not even put Canadian air in the tires. I remember that in 1928 I drew to the attention of the then Minister of Finance a statement that he made in the house in 1926, to the effect that the change made in the tariff at that time would force these motor companies to manufacture in Canada. The opposite has been the case so far as the Hudson motor company is concerned. I should like to put on Hansard this article from the Border Cities Star of April 1, 1930:
Hudson-Essex Man is Fired Because He Lives In Canada, A. G. Guest Is Informed
Off Roll For Good
Must Move to Detroit And Become U. S.
Citizen To Get Consideration Refuting statements of the Hudson Motor Car Company of Detroit that it was showing

Unemployment-Mr. Ladner
no discrimination in laying off Canadian workers, E. Grant Guest, who lives on highway No. 3 near Windsor, to-day stated that he had been told his services were no longer wanted because he was a Canadian.
First Notice March 15
Mr. Guest after working almost continunously for the Hudson company since August 4, 1925, was summarily ordered to report to the company employment office on March 15. "Report to the employment office with citizenship papers," the notice stated.
As Mr. Guest explained to the employment office officials, he had no citizenship papers and had not moved to Detroit as he had no previous notice.
"I explained the situation to Mr. Tholl, one of the men in the employment office, and after I had done so he concluded the interview by saying, 'That will be all,'" Mr. Guest declared. "The next day with no warning I received a notice that I was being laid off."
The notice which Mr. Guest brought to The Star office stated the reason for termination of his employment was "Readjustment of working force to provide work for Detroiters."
Superiors Regretful
Mr. Guest said the foreman and other immediate superiors were indignant at the treatment lie received but knowing the futility of any attempt to keep him on the payroll did not dare to make an open protest to the motor company executives.
"There are five other men I know of in the same predicament," Mr. Guest explained. "It means that after working five years to learn the Hudson method of doing things 1 am thrown out of a job with less chance of getting another position than if I had not been a steady worker and had floated from one plant to another."
Mr. Guest said he had not worked for any other company since going to work for the Hudson organization almost five years ago. He said that he had worked for five months in the old l'aige factory in Detroit before working for the Hudson company.
"On March 15 I went to see Mr. Holmwood in charge of employment, but he told me that I would never be reemployed as long as I lived in Canada," Mr. Guest said. "I was told that not only would I have to live in Detroit but would have to have first citizenship papers before I could be reemployed. I asked if it would be possible that in event of improved business conditions within three or four years if I could be re-hired, and Mr. Holmwood said that if it came to the place where the company was forced to go out and hire men in the streets, my reemployment might be considered, but as the order stood at present it was impossible to employ me."
Passes Up Detroit
Mr. Guest, who is 31 years old and married, said that he had made efforts to obtain employment in Border Cities plants without success, but had not endeavored to find another job in Detroit as he felt it would be futile in view of the orders there not to hire any Canadians, and also because of the few men being hired. He worked in the Jefferson plant of the Hudson Company as a paint inspector in the body trimming department when let out, but when the Hudson company was working three
production lines instead of two as at present he was a gang work leader. On his card stating he had been dismissed he was credited with "good" ability and deportment, the highest ranking possible.
Mr. Guest said he did not know what he could do for employment. Counting on his work with the Hudson company as permanent he had not made any previous plans to work elsewhere.
Another serious feature of the unemployment in the border cities is that hundreds and hundreds of men have lost their homes, some that were half paid for; in fact in many cases it is the second home that they have lost. Many industries to-day will not hire men over 40 to 45 years of age, their excuse being that the compensation act forces them to do this. This means that in a few years we shall have a serious problem on our hands in connection with old age pensions or unemployment insurance. I would strongly urge the government to take steps to help out the situation, at least next year, if they cannot do so this year. The federal authorities collect a handsome revenue in Windsor, the excise and customs amounting to over $30,000.000' for the past twelve months, and the post office receipts $386,000. In view of this, and of the fact that unemployment in the border cities is not altogether due to local causes over which the municipalities might have control, I think the government should deal with the situation as a national problem.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few observations on this matter because of its vast importance to the lives and happiness of so man}'' people throughout Canada, a considerable number of whom reside in my constituency. We have all had occasion, unfortunately, to witness the difficulties of many of our working people in their efforts to find employment. It is a pitiable condition of life, and it appeals to me in particular because of its human side. I have had men come into my office in Vancouver whom I have known for years to be in regular employment, honest, respectable men, seeking an honest day's work. These men are the victims of the economic depression through which the country is passing, and it seems to me that there does devolve on the government a responsibility which they cannot escape.
The question before parliament is, what has the government done to meet that responsibility? Has the government done anything? We have been presented with an impressive array of statistical data, we have heard ingenious arguments, and the government and its supporters have even tried to convince us that there is no unemployment in the country.

Unemployment-Mr. Ladner
But notwithstanding the data and arguments, we all realize that there is an appalling amount of unemployment throughout the Dominion. It may be said that unemployment is a worldwide condition, and to some extent this is true. We know that the economic pendulum swings alternately from prosperity to depression and back again to prosperity, and in my opinion it is incumbent on governments to provide for the periods of depression so that those least able to help themselves may be tided over until the pendulum does swing back to prosperity.
We have heard several solutions offered to deal with this problem of unemployment. I propose to deal only with one of those solutions-unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance would help the victim of world conditions, with the creation of which he has had nothing to do but for which he suffers acutely, to provide the necessaries of life for his wife and family, to feed and clothe them, and thus mitigate their sufferings until there is another period of prosperity in which he will be able to participate. I was very much interested the other evening-and I take this occasion to remark upon the matter because I had something to do with it-I was very much interested, nay, I was astonished, to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggest a denial of his assertion on a former occasion, that the old age pension scheme involved a vicious principle. It happened that I asked the question when he. was speaking on another subject, but I wish to reassert what is contained in Hansard; it shows that the Prime Minister did say that the granting of money for old age pensions was a vicious principle. We need have no doubt upon that question, because Hansard records it in clear, cold print.
I think the most amazing statement in the annals of statesmanship and political history in this country was made the other day when the Prime Minister gave utterance to a statement of political depravity which is surpassed only by his lack of policy on the question of unemployment. He told us that he was not disposed to make contributions to Tory governments in Canada. It seems to me that the function of a party in power is to govern the country and to formulate public policies; it is not the duty of a government to assume that extreme degree of partisanship which causes its leader, the Prime Minister, to tell the Canadian public that if any section of the people fail to carry out the partisan political policies which he has dictated, it will be incumbent upon him, as a Mussolini or a man of similar dictatorial powers, to punish

them because they happen to desire a political party of different persuasion. It should not be the policy of the federal government to punish provinces by refusing to cooperate with them financially on matters which would merit the favourable consideration of an ordinary prime minister and government.
With respect to the question before the house, I may tell hon. members that I have taken the opportunity to read the budget debates, and particularly the speeches of the Prime Minister from 1922 up to the present time, in connection with the various budgets presented. So far as fiscal policies are concerned one can find in those speeches the most inconsistent statements it is possible to conceive. The net result of the observations by the Prime Minister in years gone by is that his fiscal policy exists for the producers and the consumers, but as far as I have been able to ascertain, if you eliminated from Canada the producers and the consumers you would not have many people left. In his speech on the budget in 1928 the Prime Minister placed on record an extended list of reductions in the tariff. This list, which covers a great number of pages in Hansard, was placed by the Prime Minister at the end of his speech as a sort of addendum. Now, I find it most significant that at the present time we have a powerful factor in this cabinet in the person of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who is a declared low tariff man. We have the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who formerly sounded "(the death knell of protection;" but it is to be noted that that bell has not been sounded during more recent sessions. There is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) who is a declared free trader. There is our friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar); out of consideration for the Prime Minister I will not refer to the speeches of the Minister of Railways while he was leader of the Progressive party. The hon. gentlemen to whom I have referred constitute a very powerful circle in the government forces. They are declared free traders or low tariff men, and in my opinion part of the difficulty in regard to unemployment has been brought about by the government being wedded to a theory rather than concerned about the exigencies of business conditions. This condition exists to such an extent that in our trade with the United States we are buying from them $900,000,000 worth of goods per year, mostly manufactured products. We are selling them raw products to the extent of $500,000,000 per year. Those hon. members who analyze the trade statistics of Canada will find a very interest-

Unemployment-Mr. Ladner
ing situation. I refer to this matter at the present time because I anticipated that the Prime Minister and his colleagues will proceed to Great Britain to attend the economic conference, unless the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) attends in his place, which of course depends upon the Prime Minister's decision as to an election. In view of the coming conference it may be interesting to know that since confederation we have sold to Great Britain, in excess of what we have purchased, the enormous figure of $5,800,000,000 worth of goods, but we have purchased from the United States in excess of our sales to them, the enormous amount of $5,400,000,000 worth of goods. The attitude of the Prime Minister and his government is that they shall reduce their tariff rates, that they shall allow more manufactured goods from the United States to enter this country and to displace industries, thereby depriving Canadian working people of occupations in which they might otherwise be engaged. The outcome of the next election is something to which hon. gentlemen on this side of the house are looking forward with considerable interest. It is said that the Prime Minister is framing a protectionist budget. I do not know how my hon, friend the Minister of the Interior would greet such a situation, neither do I know how it would affect other members of the cabinet. Conditions in this country in respect to industry and unemployment are such that a protectionist budget is the one thing that would help Canada. I do not believe, however, that it will be the Prime Minister and his government that will bring in such a policy; I believe it will be the hon. gentleman who is at present leader of the opposition, as the head of the government in Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: We hear that repeatedly.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I notice the Minister of the Interior does not repeat his slogan respecting the death knell of protection. I would like to draw the attention of the government to some facts which they should bear in mind in the framing of their fiscal policy, which has a direct relationship to the present question of unemployment. I will outline the situation as I see it. In the province of Ontario there is one-third of the population of Canada; in the province of Quebec there is slightly over one-quarter; in the maritime provinces there is one-ninth of the population, and the remainder are in western Canada. If you examine the occupations in which these people are engaged you will find that in the year 1927 Canada produced about $3,500,000,000 2419-86
worth of manufactured products, and of that amount about $2,000,000,000 worth were produced in Ontario and $1,000,000,000 in the province of Quebec. There were $3,000,000,000 worth produced in these two provinces out of a total of $3,500,000,000. The three western provinces produced about $246,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, and British Columbia about $243,000,000 worth. When you consider the agricultural products you will find that the total production in Canada for the last year for which I have official figures was $1,800,000,000 worth, representing about one-half of the value of the manufactured goods produced. Those figures are interesting, but they are not generally known. The provinces of Ontario and Quebec in the year 1928 produced $811,000,000 worth of agricultural products, and the three western provinces produced $847,000,000 worth. So it will be seen that our production, industrial and agricultural, is by far the most important. The next largest class is that of forest products, which aggregate about $464,000,000. The exportable surplus of wheat and flour in Canada is valued at about $500,000,000 yearly. We all know that our friends from the prairies, for whom I have the greatest good will and consideration, gave expression to their economic problems through political activity which resulted in the formation of the Progressive party, which sent sixty-five members to Ottawa. A large number of those members, including the former Minister of Immigration, Senator Forke, were enticed by the Prime Minister to join his party. The fact is that $500,000,000 worth of grain and flour, which is exported from this country and sold on the markets of the world, to-day determines the fiscal policy of this country so far as tariffs are concerned. That is exactly what is happening, and if you will look at the trade figures you will find that our total production for the last fiscal year for which I have the figures was valued at $6,100,000,000. So the situation, in brief, is this: The $500,000,000 worth of wheat and flour represent 8 per cent of the total production of Canada, yet that 8 per cent is the guiding force in the councils of the Liberal party to-day. In my judgment it is an unsound situation, both from an economic and national point of view. I do not suggest that we should place a protective tariff upon the articles which enter into the production of flour and grain, but I do suggest that, generally speaking, we should place the tariff upon a productive basis which will protect the industrial and agricultural life of this country and enable us to conserve our home market, providing employment for the people of this country and facilitating our exports to foreign



Unemployment-Mr. Lacroix
markets. It seems to me that, from a purely economic point of view, the day has come when the people of this country will realize the relationship of these different activities and what has to be done to maintain our industrial, agricultural and economic life, and also to maintain a national consciousness. When we have a policy which will measure up to these requirements, with a statesmanlike conception of what is best for this country, we shall have taken a step forward which will greatly assist in alleviating the conditions which have brought about the economic depression of to-day, and which has occasioned the unemployment prevalent throughout the country, about which there has been so much discussion in this parliament.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, with the suggestion that if the government continues with thus death knell policy, which my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior was so fond of advocating; if the Prime Minister takes another step in political depravity such as he took a few days ago; if he continues to add to his inner circle of free traders and low tariff men; if he ignores the economic needs of this country, the people of Canada will deliver a reprimand which will result in the formation of a government which appreciates our economic conditions and which has a true conception of national policy and of statesmanship. Then once again we shall have that prosperity to which this country is entitled.


Mr. EDOUARD LACROIX (Beauce) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the state of
affairs, to-day, created by unemployment is a problem that every nation in the world has to deal with. Our neighbours, the United States, if we are to place any faith in their press are in no better position than we are. According to the New York Sun of last Saturday, there are, at present, about 5,000,000 unemployed in the United States. To what must we ascribe this state of things? It must be as a whole, attributed, in my opinion, to overproduction of industries.
Our rural districts also have their unemployed. At this period of the year, the farmer marks time until the land is in a fit condition to sow. To-day, the manufacturer m the city only produces during four or five days per week, owing to the overproduction of the last two years. Without being in a precarious state, it is undeniable that our cities have produced too much during the last few years, hence the present state of things. Why have we, to-day, unemployment in Canada? For the very reason that we have been overproducing like many other nations.

Mr. Speaker, joy and sorrow are to-day and to-morrow. Periodically there is much adjustment to be made. If we look in the past, we note that about every seven or eight years the economic pendulum must be regulated. If we look back to the year 1914, we observe that during that summer, previous to the declaration of war, the Canadian artisan was in quest of work, even at a dollar per day. I know this to be a fact because I, myself, employ many hands. In 1914, the Canadian artisan was not always employed, even at one dollar per day. What happened in 1919 and 1920? When conditions were adjusting themselves, in 1919 and 1920, during nearly two years the Canadian artisan could not find sufficient work even to pay for his board. During those years, out of a total of 1,000 men, we could but employ 20 per cent of them. What happened to the others? They had to return to their homes and patiently wait until economic conditions adjusted themselves again. I therefore conclude, sir, that the present government is no more to blame for unemployment in Canada to-day, than the Conservative government was to blame in 1914 and 1920; if it is necessary to wait until economic conditions adjust themselves. Periodically, the entire world overproduces, hence the unfortunate situation we are at present facing. Are conditions, to-day, any worse than those of 1920 and 1921? No, sir. During that period the regulating of economic conditions lasted almost two years; the overproduction being so great that the artisan could not find work.
W e are living, sir, in a country where natural resources are abundant. Our people, at times, seem to think that prosperity will always reign, and when they earn big wages, they are not always thrifty. This stage of readjustment must return periodically; it is at present taking place.
Added to this overproduction which brings on this readjustment just mentioned, speculative tendencies must be reckoned with. Last year a large number of Canadians engaged wildly in speculation. What was the result? The losses sustained nearly everywhere were the cause of a general depression, the purchasing power of the dollar fell from 40 to 50 per cent; and. owing to overproduction, goods were not sold and remained in bond.
Last week sir, to my astonishment, a kind of prearranged delegation came to interview the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in order to request him to permit the reorganization of a company in the neighbouring city. I was astonished to learn that these gentlemen had not addressed themselves to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. APRIL 7, 1930
Unemployment-Mr. Lacroix
Bennett), for, if I remember right, the hon. leader of the opposition held, some time past, interests in that neighbouring city plant, I mean the E. B. Eddy Co. One of those who
took part in the delegation said to me last week: "We would like to see the E. B. Eddy plant open its doors in order to give us work." What has the Prime Minister got to do with the Eddy Co.? Should they not instead have submitted their case to the leader of the opposition?
The merging or amalgamation of companies sometimes does great harm to the working class. Take, as an instance, the Eddy concern. What was the outcome of its merger with the Berthier company? Some hundreds of employees were thrown out of -work in the city of Hull. And why? Often the manufacturer is not satisfied with 5 per cent interest, he expects one per cent more regardless of the effect it may have on the workman. These trusts therefore tend to increase unemployment in this country. I understand that laws exist against trusts in Canada. Why do we not ask the government to enforce them as much as possible? All company mergers create a larger number of unemployed: Whether it is through the board of directors or officials employed, etc., the merger having taken place, many employees are thrown out of work. I do not wish to refer only to large industries, trade mergers such as chain stores, paper industries or any other merger; they are all inimical to the interests of the wage earners.
Are there no other means to remedy this state of things? I say there are. We may perhaps find one of these remedies in the better understanding between the manufacturer and his employees. If the manufacturers could come to a better understanding with their employees, they would certainly improve the situation. Why does not the manufacturer contribute more to the welfare of his employees? Why not pay them a fixed amount per month instead of so much per hour? Many industries employ their workers by the year, while others seem only willing to employ them at so much per hour, so as to make the greatest possible profit. The match factories, the woollen and cotton mills as well as the paper industry could certainly employ their workers during the entire year. Is it not a fact, even if the workmen were employed but five days per week, all industries being on an equal footing and obliged to pay their workers weekly or monthly, that it would be possible to keep the doors of these industries open and give the employees more comfort in life?
2419-86^
The comparison may seem somewhat farfetched, but is it not a fact that in the lumber industry, for instance, the proprietor must feed his horses seven days a week? Is he not forced to keep his modern machinery in good condition seven days a week? Well, sir, why not treat the human labour in the same way, at least during six days a week? I am strongly in favour of these improvements providing that all employers in this country be placed on an equal footing. I want the workman to enjoy all the comforts possible and to be given as much care as we give to modern machinery. As I have just stated, if we are to feed the horse seven days a week, why should not the human being receive the same treatment, for seven days per week.
I know many employers who hold my views; there are of course others who think differently. Who are the latter? They are, sir, people who have no other thought than that of the mighty dollar. Many employers hold my views, because they believe that there are other considerations than that of money which count in this world. Living themselves in comfort they are willing to help their fellow-creatures to live in a decent wajr. I wish to add that if such an understanding existed between capital and labour, all would benefit by it.
On motion of Mr. McGibbon the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) the house adjourned at 10.58 pm.
Tuesday, April 8, 1930