1930-04-03

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 50, respecting a certain patent application of Thomas Bernard Bourke and George Percival Setter-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 51, respecting a certain patent application of Hairy Barrington Bonney-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 52, to incorporate the Merchants' and Employers' Insurance Company-Mr. Merrier (Laurier-Outremont).

[Stage Direction]
First report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament-Mr. Marcil.

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

Mr. LADNER:: L What work is the Soldier Settlement Board performing?
2.	Has a report been recently made on the Soldier Settlement Board?
3.	If so, has not the work been satisfactorily performed by the present staff?
4.	How long has the present staff been employed ?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to retain the services of the present staff?
6.	Is it the intention of the government during the present session to place the employees of that board on the same basis as permanent members of the civil service and to provide for them the benefits of the Civil Service Act?

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton) for Minister of National Defence:
1.	The Soldier Settlement Board is administering the Soldier Settlement Act; the 3,000 British family settlement scheme; the 500 New Brunswick family settlement scheme, and gives aftercare to certain classes of assisted migrants and does such other colonization work as called upon by the Department of Immigration and Colonization.
2.	Yes-by the Audit Board of Canada.
3.	Yes.
4.	The majority of staff from 10 to 12 years.
5.	As long as may be necessary.
6.	Under consideration.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SAFETY ENGINEER
Mr. LXWSON:: 1.	What are the qualifications necessary for appointment to position of safety engineer, on the Canadian National Railways?
2.	Was Mr. LeBer appointed to the position of safety engineer, central region, headquarters, Toronto, Ontario?
3.	If so, what were his qualifications for the position?
4.	What position did he previously hold?
5.	Who was responsible for the appointment?
6.	Why was the assistant safety engineer not appointed to fill this position?


Mr. CRERAR:: It is not considered to be
in the interests of the Canadian National Railways, nor in the public interest, to bring down information of this character. Questions of fitness for appointment to the railway service, and of qualification for promotion within the service, are matters for the consideration of the railway management, and are required to be dealt with by the responsible officers of the company, subject only to the recognized right of appeal to the higher authorities of the railway and to the recognized representatives of any employees affected.


MAPLE SUGAR INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the better organization and development of the maple sugar industry, to prevent adulteration, to authorize regulations, and to provide for the payment of fees for registration, analysis and licences.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

Inquiries for Returns

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, some two years ago I brought to the attention of the house somewhat critically the fact that the Toronto Daily Star radio station CFCA had received a licence for the exclusive use of a certain wave-length. I have received from a constituent an editorial from the Toronto Telegram quoting and commenting on an editorial published by the Toronto Star which latter reads in part as follows:
As a pioneer in the radio field, with its station CFCA-which, if radio remains in public hands, will have a powerful new station.
My correspondent takes that to be a declaration on the part of the Toronto Daily Star that they have the assurance of the renewal of their present licence, and authorization for a more powerful station. Will the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) be good enough to inform the house if the department has given an assurance to this newspaper that, in the event of broadcasting not being nationalized, its licence will be renewed with provision for an increase in power, and if similar assurances have been given to other radio stations?


Mr. CARDIN:: No such assurance has been given.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) when I may expect an answer to my question regarding the number of vessels in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine employed in trade between Canada and Australia and between Canada and New Zealand.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If the hon. member's question relates to the merchant marine, it should be directed to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar).


Robert King Anderson: It is question No. 3 on the order paper.


CORRECTION-HON. MR. STEWART
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, referring to page 1090 of Hansard, I would like to correct a reply I gave to a question of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). The hon. member asked a question regarding
a ruling which had been made with reference to the territory under discussion, and I stated:
They are assumed to be British subjects. As my hon. friend knows, we have taken over the control of the territory, which control has not been disputed in any particular except with respect to one small portion. The Danish government have presented a claim based upon the explorations made by Otto Sverdrup, and at the present time we are endeavouring to settle that claim.
I should have stated that it was the Norwegian government which was making the claim. The same correction should be made on page 1101, it should be the Norwegian government instead of the Danish government.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. D. F. KELLNER (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, my question regarding the immigration expenditures since 1922 was passed as an order for return on March 5, and I would like to ask the minister when this return will be brought down.


Charles A. Stewart: I will bring the matter to the
attention of the officials of the department and ask them to bring down the return as
soon as possible.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. M. E. MAYBEE (Northumberland, Ont.):: I would like to ask the Postmaster
General when the answer to my question which was passed as an order for return in regard to the Post Office Department will be brought down?


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: If I knew to what particular question the hon. gentleman referred I could answer now. However, I shall have officials of the Post Office Department look into the matter.


IMPERIAL TREATIES AND STATUTES
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I would like to ask the Prime
Minister whether he cannot bring down in the next ten days the return, either wholly or partly prepared, which was ordered at the last session of the house, with respect to Imperial treaties and statutes which affect Canada.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I shall be pleased to inquire at once as to what condition the return is in and to do my utmost to have the request of my hon. friend met.

Unemployment-Mr. McIntosh


BUBAL MAIL ROUTES
Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria, Ont.):: On the 10th March, an order of the house was passed for a return in connection with rural mail routes in Canada. I should like to know from the Postmaster General when that return will be brought down.


Peter John Veniot: I gave the answer yesterday. So far as I can find out it will be ready for Monday. I am trying to have it ready for to-morrow, but it will be ready not later than Monday. It is quite a voluminous piece of work and it requires a great deal of extra time to prepare it.


JACK MINER BIRD SANCTUARY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: Is it the
intention of the government to renew the $5,000 grant to the Jack Miner bird sanctuary this year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I cannot give
my hon. friend an answer at the moment. I would wish to confer first with the Minister of Finance.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, April 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Heaps.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, when the house
adjourned last night at six o'clock, I was discussing in a general way the attitude of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) with respect to his helping to frame two reports on unemployment insurance, one during the session of 1928, and the other during the session of 1929, and the attitude that he is taking now in contradistinction thereto, with regard to the discussion at present going on in the house on the question. As I pointed out yesterday, the hon. member did a great deal of hard work in the committee, but when, on two occasions, this matter came up for discussion in the house, and after the report of the committee had been adopted and endorsed by this chamber, if his attitude had been slightly different, it might have been better for organized industry and organized labour alike in this country. That, however, is a matter for the hon. mem-iMr. Mackenzie King.]
ber himself to decide, and later on I may deal with one phase of the problem, namely, that of legislative power or competency of jurisdiction that concerns my hon. friend and with reference to which he has taken his present attitude.
The hon. member for Toronto-Scarbor-ough (Mr. Harris), when dealing with this question, touched practically all the points of the compass. One would think the house was engaged in a debate on the budget rather than on the question of unemployment insurance. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) also dealt in a very general way with the question, but he tried to make out that the unemployment situation was largely due to the fiscal policy of the government. That is not so, because we have had unemployment in Canada from decade to diecade and from one administration to another.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) waxed eloquent yesterday-and I like to hear him speak in this chamber- with respect to the unemployment problem. He tried to present to the house an argument to the effect that if we were to go back to the good old national policy days, we would have no unemployment. I think my hon. friend must forget the years prior to the time when the national policy was given a decisive setback. I refer to 1896 when the national policy was not endorsed by the electorate of Canada.
Mr. HANSON:: The national policy was
not an issue then; my hon. friend is talking about the Manitoba schools.


Mr. McINTOSH:: That is not so. At
that time the Liberal party came into power and Canada experienced an era of development such as had never been known in its history. We recall that prior to 1896 industry in Canada was stagnant; commerce was not by any means active; unemployment was rife and deficit after deficit was presented to the house by the administration espousing the national policy. So we cannot accept the national policy as a solution for any unemployment problem affecting Canada at the present time. The hon. member for Fort William spoke about getting joint action. I believe if we start in the right way we can get joint action, at least in some stage of the problem. If we would confine our attention to the point where we can really make a start and look for combined action later on, there is no reason why that action should not be secured.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) reviewing the problem, put forward

Unemployment-Mr. Mclntosh
some commendable ideas in connection with the causes which underlie this question. He felt, however, that all the provinces should act at once.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: That is
the very thing I did not do. I pointed out that it was hopeless to expect unanimity at the beginning.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am reading from a
report in this morning's Ottawa Citizen of the hon. gentleman's speech in the House of Commons yesterday. I had not time to read his speech word for word.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Read it in Hansard.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am only too pleased
if he did not make that contention. Another point the hon. member put forward was that we should have an economic survey made of the whole country. We have had enough of economic surveys and it is about time we looked to a certain quarter in Canada for action, that is to the provinces to whom this problem belongs, and1 let them provide any further economic survey that we may need.
Regarding the report for 1928 on this question of unemployment insurance, the house decided on March 21, 1928, to refer to the committee on industrial and international relations the resolution dealing with unemployment. After two months' investigation the committee reported. Before that committee we had as many witnesses as possible to deal with every side of the problem. We had organized industry and organized labour represented before the committee. The two representatives of organized industry who were called to give evidence were the president and the secretary of the international relations committee of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association of Canada. We thought if we could get the Canadian Manufacturers' Association on record as to any such departure we would have some valuable evidence. These two gentlemen in their sworn evidence stated that the question of unemployment insurance had not been taken up by their association at all, that they had given no attention to it nationally, that they had given no attention to it provincially, that they had given no attention to it in any way; and consequently, it was impossible for the committee to get any authorized point of view on this problem from the two witnesses who appeared before it representing the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I merely draw attention to that fact because I believe that before we ask the federal government to jump into a proposition of this kind we had
better get a thoroughly organized body of public opinion, both in industry and in the provinces, in favour of it.
We also had before the committee the representatives of organized labour. Mr. Tom Moore appeared, representing the trades and labour congress of Canada. The all-Canadian labour congress, represented by Mr. Mosher, also gave its point of view to the committee. These two gentlemen went on record to the effect that unemployment insurance belonged entirely to the industrial interests of Canada, and not to the employees, nor ito any provincial or national government, but wholly and entirely to the industrial interests of Canada. That w'as the labour point of view. I have already shown that so far as industry is concerned, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association had not discussed the problem at all.
We moreover took evidence from other quarters, and after all the evidence had been heard, we brought in a report. I believe it is worth while for me to deal briefly with the first clause of that report of 1928. Here is what the committee recommended with respect to the compulsory aspect of this problem, and let me say that this was endorsed unanimously by the house in 1928. I wish to stress the idea of unanimity as strongly as possible because we had a debate last year, and we are having another this year on this same question. and the public business of the country is thereby being held up. The first clause of that report reads:
We accept and endorse the principle of unemployment insurance, based on compulsory contributions derived from the state, the employer and the employee. In this connection, wo would point out that a somewhat similar decision was arrived at by a royal commission on industrial relations, which dealt with this subject in 1919.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Would it not be well to finish reading thait report?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I have not time to finish reading it. I wish to deal with only one or two important points in it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps it is just as well for the hon. gentleman not to finish reading fit.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That same principle
with respect to compulsory contributions was incorporated in the report of 1929, and the house again endorsed that principle last year. There was no division in the committee on the compulsory aspect of unemployment insurance. The committee was unanimously of the opinion that that was the course to take, that it was the pathway along which the provinces and the Dominion, if they wanted to take

Unemployment-Mr. McIntosh
action, should travel. That phase of compulsory contributions was discussed at great length. The committee based its recommendations in that regard largely on certain clauses in the report of the Blanesburgh committee which was appointed in Great Britain to look into the matter of unemployment insurance in 1925, and upon the report of which committee legislative action was taken in 1927.
In Great Britain the National Insurance Act was passed in 1911. A new act was brought into force in 1920, and amendments were made to it in 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927. The report of this committee was the foundation of the legislative action that was taken in 1927. Our committee based its action to a large extent on the recommendations of this committee whose report read in part as follows:
(1)	The worker's contribution must be moderate in amount. It should never normally exceed 5d. a week, and, supplemented by the contribution of his employer and the state, should secure him an insurance sufficient in the great majority of cases to save him, during inevitable unemployment, from recourse to public assistance.
(2)	The scheme must not, by the extent of benefit promised, tempt the insured contributor to improvidence when in receipt of good pay.
(3)	It should provide benefits definitely less in amount than the general labourer's rate of wage, so that there may be no temptation to prefer benefit to work.
(4)	It must not interfere unduly with the mobility of labour in this country.
(5)	It must not deter from emigration those who would be benefited by a life overseas.
That report, upon which legislative action was taken by the British parliament, stressed this important fact, that there would be a tendency to abuses in any system of unemployment insurance, and the whole effort of parliament, whether it be the imperial parliament, this parliament or any other, should be to safeguard against those abuses, and to make the act as watertight and effective as possible, to make any policy of unemployment insurance as solid legislatively as it could possibly be made, so that when it was in operation there would be a minimum of abuses, and it would operate as effectively as possible on behalf of the workers, organized industry, and the country generally.
Our committee considered the same resolution in 1929, and after deliberating for a considerable time reported to the house, and that report was adopted on an amendment by 92 to 18. There was an acrimonious debate when the report came before the house last year, and it was largely over oue point of policy in the report, the question of jurisdiction.
Now what about this question of jurisdiction? That is where my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has had some difficulty. Although he is very anxious to see this problem solved, I am inclined to think that he is making a mountain out of a mole hill, and that with a little more time and patience, and with public opinion developed in the provinces and in organized industry to the point of giving a lead in this matter, we will get action from the provinces, and when that action is taken the Dominion government will consider the whole proposition and deal with the provinces in an equitable manner. Turning to the report of the industrial and international relations committee of 1929, it will be noted that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) discussed before that committee the same constitutional aspect of the problem that he brought before this house a few days ago. Mr. Stuart Edwards, Deputy Minister of Justice was giving evidence, and he was asked this question by the hon. member:
May I ask a question in that connection? I understand that during the session of 1920, parliament had placed before it privy council order No. 2722, dealing with the report from the Minister of Justice in reference to a number of draft conventions and recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference (League of Nations) at its first annual meeting, held at Washington, D.C., October-November, 1919. Amongst these were two of particular application to the present inquiry, concerning which the order in council says:
Recommendation dealing with unemployment insurance:	The minister observes that the
experience of other countries had demonstrated that a system of unemployment insurance, in order to be effective and successful, must be merely ancillary or complementary to a system of labour exchanges, the whole being adapted to the principal function of finding work for unemployed insured workmen. In this view, unemployment insurance has a pronounced federal aspect, and on the whole, the minister thinks the establishment of a system of unemployment insurance is competent to the Dominion in the existence of its residuary legislative power with relation to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
Then the hon. member said:
That was the opinion of the Minister of Justice in 1921.
And he put this further question to Mr. Edwards:
Has the opinion of the department altered since that time, or how can you explain that opinion?
To which Mr. Edwards answered:
That opinion was given mainly in connection with the international aspect of the subject.

Unemployment-Mr. McIntosh
I believe that is where my hon. friend is floundering. Mr. Edwards proceeded:
As I explained to the committee last year, in so far as we are under any obligation by way of treaty, the legislative power rests with the parliament of Canada. I understand that the particular convention to which reference was made in that opinion was not a treaty within the meaning of the act, but it was a draft convention which was submitted to the several governments constituting the League of Nations, with a view to the proposals contained in that convention being placed before the proper controlling body for consideration, and, in dealing with that, the minister pointed out that where the scheme called for by the convention was international in its character he would be prepared to submit that to parliament. It would follow that if such a scheme were submitted to parliament, parliament would have power to carry out the provisions of that treaty. But a moment ago I was speaking about the matter from a domestic point of view.
In short, the ruling of the law officers of the crown is that only the international aspect of this problem of unemployment-in relation to treaties to which the Dominion is a party -is a federal matter; every other phase is provincial. Consequently the stand taken by this house on the report formulated by the committee on industrial and international relations is absolutely constitutional; that is, that the whole problem falls, within the jurisdiction of the provinces. This being the case, we may well be at a loss to understand just why after the debate on this question last session on the amendment which the hon. member (Mr. Heaps) moved to the report, we should this session have another protracted discussion along practically the same lines; for there is no possibility in the world of the decision, then reached being changed. The proposition before the house and the country is simply that the unemployment problem comes within the jurisdiction of the provinces and not of the Dominion. Shovdd the Dominion see fit in its discretionary power to take action to supplement any action the provinces might take, well and good; but the two reports adopted by this house last session and the session before put the proposition squarely up to the provinces. If the provinces decline to take action, then it seems to me that those who are concerned in this matter on behalf of organized industry and organized labour, ought to stir up the public provincially and so get the provinces to enact the necessary legislative measures. If organized industry and organized labour succeed in arousing public opinion throughout the provinces, I do not think it would be long before the various provincial governments took the necessary
steps to bring about a solution of the difficulty, which would enure to the benefit not only of organized industry but of all labouring classes. . I believe this problem will be solved in the near future. It is an important problem. It is national in some aspects and it is provincial in others, but under our constitution legislative action must be taken by the provinces, and when they do take action I think the interests of agriculture ought to be safeguarded. In the main, Mr. Speaker, this problem concerns our industrial employees, not our agricultural employees. That being the case, and I do not think anyone will dispute it, as a member from an agricultural constituency in western Canada, I would ask that the interests of agriculture be safeguarded in any legislation that may be enacted. Agriculture should be safeguarded absolutely.
Mr. W00DSW0RTH: What has the hon. gentleman in mind when he speaks about safeguarding the industry of agriculture?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The primary interest in connection with this problem is that of our industrial employees, the employees in our large centres, those who are working in our factories, on our railways, and so forth, and if agriculture is to be included in any legislation that may be enacted to deal with the problem, I think agriculture should be given an opportunity of expressing its views on the whole question before such legislation is passed. I believe that that is only right.
Now, as my time is fast passing, may I draw the attention of the house to the stand taken by my hon. friend from North Winnipeg with regard to this matter last year. He listened to all the evidence before the committee on industrial and international relations, he was given that privilege from meeting to meeting, and last session he brought in an amendment to the report when it was presented to the house. It was an amazing amendment, being in fact nothing short of an attempt to amend the constitution. Let me quote the amendment so that hon. members may appreciate its full effect:
That the said report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations be not now concurred in. but that it be referred back to the select standing committee on industrial and international relations with instructions that they have power to amend the same by adding thereto a clause recommending that all the provinces of the Dominion be requested to pass legislation under which the jurisdiction in relation to legislation providing for unemployment, sickness and invalidity insurance based on compulsory contributions and which is now claimed to be within or subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces be vested in the Dominion government.

Unemployment-Mr. McIntosh
It will be seen that the hon. member finds it difficult to realize that this is a provincial problem. I think that is his difficulty and the difficulty of his friends.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Hear, hear.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: For his and their benefit let me quote this passage from the Scriptures: Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. I believe the truth alone will make the hon. gentleman free in this case; in other words he must get the facts.


Mr. HEAPS:: Would not that biblical quotation apply equally to the hon. gentleman?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, but mainly to my hon. friend. Now, as I have said, the hon. member for North Winnipeg moved that amendment last session. When the matter came before the house the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) exposed the fallacy of the amendment. They showed it was impossible for the provinces to delegate any of itheir powers to the Dominion, and vice versa; and so the amendment failed, and the report of the committee was adopted by a large majority.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Might I ask the hon. member: Is that not exactly what parliament did with respect to the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That was thoroughly discussed last year in this house, Mr. Speaker. I have not time to go into it now, and I think the hon. member knows the facts. I can add nothing to it by taking up the time of the house at the present moment.


Edward Joseph Garland: You could
answer yes or no.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: You cannot
answer that to all questions.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What does the amendment amount to that my hon. friend has this year placed before the house? A blockade amendment like that of last year. It has held up the business of the house and has delayed the business of the country. After the committee's report of 1929 was adopted and endorsed, and after the matter was passed on to the provinces for their action. When we consider that phase of the matter, why should we debate this question indefinitely? Why not accept the decision of the house and the committee? Why do not hon. members accept this decision? I would say that all further amendments just postpone the day of

action and deprive the provinces of the opportunity they should have to outline to all Canada their stand on a matter of this nature.
My hon. friend from North Winnipeg is quoted in Hansard at page 2775. Hansard at that page simply records the answers given to my hon. friend by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and other members of the house. I do not think I should take up the time of the house in dealing with them. But I wish to read the words of my hon. friend as they are recorded at page 119 in the 1928 report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations. I think the report clears up the difficulty rather definitely. On the occasion to which I refer the Deputy Minister of Justice was giving evidence before the committee. It was our intention at that time to get the question of legality and jurisdiction cleared up once and for all, and it was for that reason we called the deputy minister as a witness. The question by the hon. member for North Winnipeg appears as follows:
If I understand the statements here this morning correctly, I would interpret your remarks to mean that the federal government has not authority to impose Dominion-wide legislation, or has not the authority to impose compulsory unemployment insurance, or sickness insurance.
The answer by the deputy minister to that question was clear and concise. It is simply:
Yes, that is correct.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg did not have any more questions, and he accepted that answer as final. Yet, after accepting the report of that committee as final, and accepting that as a final statement, we have the spectacle of the hon. member coming before this house on two occasions. The first time was in 1928, on which occasion he moved an amendment that was hopelessly beaten. He has repeated the amendment in the 1930 session, and it also will be beaten.
It seems to me that the hon. member for North Winnipeg and every other hon. member of this house, should be devoting their energies especially to an acceleration of public opinion in this province and other provinces in the hope that one province, or a group of provinces will take the initiative and, in cooperation with the Dominion government, as our Prime Minister has advised, seek to work out a uniform plan-something that will be satisfactory to all concerned. That is what all parties should be doing, apart from political prestige or political

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
fortune, if they consider the problem of unemployment to be one that affects closely the lives of thousands of working people in Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does not
the hon. member think that the greatest possible impetus that could be given to this particular thing of which he speaks would be by initiatory action of the federal government?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I do not believe there
is any great impetus to anything, when it is illegal and when it is unconstitutional, and when it is not demanded in that sense. We ought to go at it in a correct way, and by doing that we will arrive at a more satisfactory solution.


Edward Joseph Garland: We are
not asking for anything that is illegal.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I take the hon. member's statement and I am looking at it in the light of the action of this house last year. I am looking at it in that light, and in t.he light of what this house will certainly do this year. From this viewpoint I think I am correct in estimating that the hon. member's question has an illegal or unconstitutional ring to it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What did this house do in regard to the liquor question last year?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is in reality a
budget question, and does not affect this one.
I therefore think it is the duty of this house to defeat the amendment. I am going to vote against it, so that we may uphold the record of the house in its responsible committee activities for the years 1928 and 1929. Then in no uncertain voice I am going to ask the Prime Minister to impress upon the house the fact that it is the privilege of the provinces to take action under the constitution which belongs to them. Once they take that action the cooperation of the Dominion government and the financial cooperation of this house can be given them. There is no question about it that if we can do it in that way, legally and constitutionally, public opinion may be massed on this vital question from one province to another, clear across Canada. Once we get that, I am satisfied hon. members of this house will repeat the action taken in other years, in view of what was done by the committee on international and industrial relations in 1928 and again in 1929. The action of the committee on those occasions was upheld by this house, and I am sure the
action of the committee and this house last year will be repeated this year, and that action thus will be found to be a distinct contribution to the solution of the problem, in a way that will redound to the complete and permanent satisfaction of the people throughout Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on Monday
last, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), I moved that the house go into committee to consider supply, I did so in the hope of having supply voted for the Department of External Affairs. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) moved an amendment that all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
In the opinion of this house the government should take immediate action to deal with the question of unemployment.
For a period of three days since, the house has been discussing the subject of unemployment. I have tried to follow the debate closely, with a view to seeing what was most in the minds of hon. members. After listening to the addresses from all sides, I must confess I have come to the conclusion that some appear to have one objective and others another. The house is far from united in its understanding of what the hon. member who moved the amendment had in mind when he asked that the house should immediately consider the question of unemployment.
There is a certain aspect of the problem of unemployment which all members have sought to emphasize; that is that the problem of unemployment is a national one.. I observed that many hon. members stressed strongly the view that the unemployment problem was a national problem. I do not think we can question that for a moment. What significance attaches to this depends entirely upon what inferences are to be drawn therefrom. If it is meant that the unemployment problem is a national problem to the exclusion of being a provincial problem or to the exclusion of being also a municipal problem or, to take a step in the other direction, to the exclusion of being an empire problem, or to the exclusion of being a world problem, then in that sense I cannot admit it to be a national problem. Once we admit that the problem of unemployment is something which far exceeds being any merely municipal or any purely provincial problem; that it is larger by far than any merely national problem; that it is again wider than an empire problem and that it is in fact a world problem, then at once I am pre-
1222	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
pared to agree that in this meaning of the term and in this relationship it is a national problem:
Admitting that, what inference is to be drawn? The inference, I think is clear; it is that in the endeavour to meet or to solve this problem, there must be as much in the way of combined effort as may be possible, and there must be very much in the way of division of labour. Each part must do what in its particular sphere and within its own jurisdiction it finds it possible to do. The League of Nations, representing most if not all of the nations of the world, may do something towards the solution of the problem of unemployment, but with regard to this problem the part taken by the League of Nations, will be very different from the part taken by a municipality, the question will not be solved by either one attempting to deal with it to the exclusion of the other.
Because it has been conceded that unemployment is a national problem, some hon. members have sought to draw the inference that at the present time there is throughout Canada an emergent situation demanding immediate action on the part of the federal government. Other hon. members have not stressed so much the emergent condition; indeed, they have dropped it altogether and have devoted their attention-and I think very wisely-to the larger question of whether or not the problem of unemplojunent can be solved, at least in part through the introduction of some system of social insurance, some particular form of unemployment insurance The discussion in this particular has centred around the question as to whether or not this federal government should take the initiative in seeking to bring about the adoption of a system of that kind by the provinces of the Dominion.
Having regard to the obligation of the League of Nations, one would hardly feel that because the League is concerned with the problem of unemployment it should therefore immediately set out to assess all the countries of the world with a view to meeting an unemployment problem as it may arise in anjr one particular country. The League of Nations, moreover would not feel it a part of its obligation to attempt to force upon the different countries of the world a system of unemployment insurance. I do think, however, that it would be and is an all-important part of the work of the League of Nations to endeavour to draw to the attention of all nations the magnitude of this problem, its many intricate phases and, so far as may be possible, by educational efforts and propaganda of different kinds, to supply the different countries of the world with the information

needed to enable them, so far as may be possible, one with the other, to adopt some system or systems of unemployment insurance that in the course of time will be uniform throughout the world. I think also it might be reasonably argued to be a part of the obligation of the League of Nations that, if a very serious situation should arise in any one country, where there was great distress, the League might well appeal to all other countries to enable some fund to be raised whereby immediate assistance could be given to the particular country affected.
Almost the same thing might be said with regard to unemployment within the British Empire. I do not think for a moment that any one here would say that the problem of unemployment where serious in any part of the British Empire does not affect all parts of the empire. I believe that to-day this Dominion is being very vitally affected by the serious unemployment problem which exists in Great Britain, but because that is the case it does not follow that Great Britain is called upon to expect all parts of the empire to contribute to some fund to be made available to the particular part of the empire in which distress exists to-day. Nor do I think it follows that Great Britain would feel for a moment that it was a part of her obligation to say that a system of social insurance or unemployment insurance was something which necessarily must be adopted by all the dominions whether or not they wished to have such a system, merely from the fact that she herself has a system which has been thought appropriate for the British Isles. I say it does not follow that she should seek to oblige all the dominions to adopt a similar method of dealing with this question. I do believe, however, that there is imposed upon Great Britain and upon the component parts of the British Empire the obligation to do what they can to have established uniform standards of living, standards of health, and standards of working conditions in industry throughout all parts of the Empire. I do not believe any part of the world has gone as far as the British Empire has gone in that direction; I think in this matter the British Empire as a whole stands as an example to the world.
When it comes to our own Dominion and more particularly to the work of this federal government, I feel that we are in a comparable position to that which I have described with regard to the obligations of the League of Nations or the obligation of the British Empire as a whole. Recognizing that the unemployment problem is as vast as it is, there is a real obligation upon this federal government, in

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
accordance with the powers which are given to it and having regard to the entirety of its obligations, particularly in relation to the obligations assigned to the provinces, to do what it can in what it believes to be an effective way to help solve this very great problem. I do not feel however, that for that reason this federal government is called upon to ask the taxpayers of all parts of this Dominion to permit it to assess them by way of additional taxation in order that it may take money out of the federal treasury, not to be used for federal purposes as such but to be distributed to certain of the provinces, not necessarily to all provinces, and possibly not even to the provinces but only to certain municipalities.
Let me repeat that statement. I can see nothing arising out of a recognition of this problem as a national problem which obliges this federal government, having regard to our constitution and the division of powers under it, to collect taxes from the people generally in order to meet a situation which affects only a certain group of people in some municipalities in this country, but which does not adversely affect the country as a whole. I am not saying we could not do such a thing; I am not saving that this federal parliament cannot vote money for any purposes for which it mav desire so to do, but I am trying to make it clear that under our constitution I do not think it was ever intended that this federal government should become the agency through which problems which are primarily municipal and provincial should be dealt with.
I might go a step further. In connection with this auestion of unemployment, as hon. gentlemen more particular!}' of the Labour group have dealt with it, we have heard only of the unemployed who happen to be in the favoured, or if they wish to so construe it, in the unfavoured position of belonging to certain trades which may or may not be allied with organized labour. Their reference primarily was to groups of citizens of this country who are engaged more or less in certain of the trades of the country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We did not narrow it in any such way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to accept my hon. friend's explanation. I would ask the house and the country this question: What consideration has been given in this debate to members of the professions? There are large numbers of young men and women in Canada who have gone into the so called learned professions-physicians, lawyers, ministers, members of the teaching profession, professors, teachers and others. I do not think my hon. friend will deny that those people are perfoming a useful service and function in the state and that they are entitled to consideration. I would like to ask my hon. friend if he has ever stopped to consider that manv a young man, seeking to get a start in his chosen profession, whether law or medicine or other calling, has to wait, not one or two months during the winter, but sometimes month after month, and I might almost say year after year, before he begins to receive any remuneration worth speaking of in his own business. These persons and their families are part of the taxpayers of this country, they constitute a portion of those who are paying the taxes which my hon. friend desires to take from the treasury and send to the municipalities to be dealt with in the manner he has described.
In connection with the professions, may I mention the journalists as being also an important branch? Those who are engaged in literary work in its many forms do not have continuous occupation every day of every month of every year. Consider also those who are engaged in commercial and financial enterprises and the number of persons employed by them. Has my hon. friend given special consideration to those people as respects their periods of unemployment? What about those engaged in wholesale and retail trades and the thousands of men and women employed as clerks in the shops and stores and hotels and other places of business? During periods of depression employer after employer, whether at the head of a shop or of a large industrial or financial enterprise, is obliged to eliminate a certain number of employees. Is this money which is to go out of the federal treasury to the municipalities to go to those who are being thus eliminated?


Mr. SPENCER:: Certainly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish we had heard a little more of it, because we now begin to see the scope of what my hon. friends are suggesting. Consider the farming community of which the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Spencer) is a member. During several months of the year it is impossible to carry on certain farm operations. Those who are engaged in farming are aware of that and during the time that there is an opportunity to work, they take that factor into account. Have they been asking this federal parliament to take the taxes of the people and dole them out for the purposes of meeting their temporary periods of unemployment? I
1224	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
have yet to hear of a single deputation coming to this parliament from any agricultural district in this country to ask that federal moneys should be used in the way here proposed. Mr. Speaker, I submit that the agricultural element in this country is entitled to every possible consideration.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I
interrupt the right hon. gentleman? The farmer members in the Alberta legislature, who are themselves farmers, voted in favour of the adoption of some system of unemployment insurance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has just directed our attention to farmer members; I am speaking of the farmers themselves.


Edward Joseph Garland: Those members are themselves farmers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We all understand why a member of parliament or of a legislature may make a particular appeal such as my hon. friend is making, but what I wish to bring home to those who are so lightly suggesting that we should dip into the federal treasury for these purposes-


Edward Joseph Garland: Not lightly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not say that my hon. friend is treating it in that manner, but there are some who are.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think that I interrupted my hon. friend, and I would ask hon. gentlemen kindly to allow me to make my speech without interruption. I think by actual count there were 146 interruptions yesterday during the speech of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan).


Mr. STEVENS:: The minister invited them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not inviting them, and I should like to be permitted to make my statement with as few interruptions as possible.
Every man, woman and child in this country who directly pays taxes or on whose behalf any taxation is levied, is interested in what is done with the moneys received. They are equally interested in sharing in the benefits which are to come out of the expenditure of public moneys for the purposes mentioned.
I believe it was for that very reason that the fathers of confederation when they framed the constitution of our country very wisely saw that there were some matters which best could be dealt with by the federal government as a whole, and other matters which it would be infinitely preferable to assign to the .
provinces. A perusal of the British North America Act fails to disclose any powers of legislation assigned exclusively to the federal government with reference to that class of enactments best described as social legislation. That may have been a mistake upon the part of the framers of the constitution, and as time goes on it may have to be changed, but I am pointing out the position of the constitution at the present time. I am seeking to give what I believe to have been one reason why the fathers of confederation found it advisable to define as they did the respective powers of the Dominion and the provinces. Section 92 of the British North America Act which deals with the exclusive powers of provincial legislatures reads as follows:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-
Clause No. 7 reads:
The establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums, charities and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals.
In reading that clause one might well be led to believe that the fathers of confederation saw that there would be cases of hardship and distress, and that institutions would be essential for the care of individuals suffering the handicaps indicated, and they felt that it was advisable that the unit of government which would be more immediately associated with the localities and persons interested should be the one to deal exclusively with '.hat class of subjects in matters of legislation. Clause No. 8 reads:
Municipal institutions in the province.
This question of unemployment has come up almost exclusively from the point of view of the aid to* be given to municipalities, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when municipal institutions in the province were set out as belonging to the class of matters with which the provinces would be exclusively concerned in legislation, it is reasonable to assume that in matters of unemployment relief for municipalities the first approach, at least, should be made to the province of the municipalities concerned.
Clause No. 13 reads:
Property and civil rights in the province.
Employment is a matter of contract and of jivil rights. Why is it that this parliament :s not dealing with factory legislation? Why are we not dealing with mining legislation? Why are we not passing laws governing workshops and the like, and fixing the hours of labour in different occupations and so on? All of these have a direct bearing on employ-

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Which one was it?
ment or unemployment, they are at their very root. No one is questioning the power of the provinces in that regard, but I submit that from the point of view of serving the interests of the working classes of the country it is just as unfair to advocate that this Dominion parliament should deal with the question of unemployment as a primary obligation as to urge that it should be primarily concerned with legislation with respect to factories, workshops, and mines.
I believe the day will come

it may be centuries hence; -I do not know how long it will be, but I do not think it will be so very long-when in this Dominion one central parliament will deal with all this class of legislation. But that time has not yet arrived, and until it does arrive the constitution of our country says that all these matters which relate to factories, mines, workshops, contracts between master and servant, between employer and employed, all of which are matters pertaining to industrial relations come within the extensive jurisdiction of the provinces and not of the federal government. Therefore I submit that we are justified from the federal point of view in making clear the line of division and seeking to reserve in the public treasury for federal purposes the funds that are raised for federal purposes.
The last of the powers mentioned as exclusively belonging to the provinces is set forth, for in clause No. 16 it reads:
Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.
Surely the unemployment of which we have heard is of a local nature in certain only of the provinces. We have heard from Manitoba and I think the only Manitoba municipality mentioned in all the discussion was the city of Winnipeg, one locality. We have heard from the province of Ontario. I think the hon. member who resides in Fort William and the hon. member who resides in Kenora mentioned their particular communities, but apart from those, Toronto is the only centre that has been mentioned.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Calgary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -Calgary is not in Ontario. In regard to the other provinces, my hon. friend's remarks will help to illustrate what 1 have in mind. There has been mention of one or two cities and only one or two. I have not heard mention in the house of a single municipality in the province of Quebec; I have not heard mention of one in the province of New Brunswick.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I mentioned one in Quebec.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The other day I mentioned conditions in connection with Grand-Mere.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not in the
course of this debate, if I may correct my hon. friend. The fact that hon. members are obliged to restrict themselves to naming individual municipalities and are able to name them in numbers that can be counted on one hand so far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned, demonstrates more strongly than words could how little we have a national problem of unemployment in this country at the present time.
As I have said, after discussing unemployment as a national problem the discussion took in the main two trends. The one trend was that at the present time there exists an emergency which demands that out of the federal treasury we should give money to the provinces and to the municipalities to aid in relieving unemployment. The other was that there being a condition that arises and that will continue for all time to arise with respect to unemployment at certain seasons and from other causes this condition should be met by some system of unemployment insurance. Let me deal with those two separately.
And the first is that there is in Canada today an emergency condition of unemployment which demands that the government should take from the federal treasury a portion of the taxes of the people of Canada as a whole, taxes which have been contributed by all the provinces and from some provinces from which not one word has been said with respect to any need for unemployment relief, and should hand these moneys over to one or two or more of the other provinces to help an alleged serious unemployment situation there. I submit that there is no evidence in Canada to-day of an emergency situation which demands anything of that kind. Every winter in this country, ever since there was a winter or a Canada, there has been unemployment and there always will be. That situation unquestionably may be aggravated by particular conditions, and when a condition becomes aggravated for any locality, human justice and feeling would demand that those localities that are immediately associated should come as neighbours and share in the relief of the situation. When a local condition becomes too great to deal with, the province in which that municipality is situated should be the body next to deal with the matter. That has always been

1226	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
the case. When conditions become such that
not all the provinces but two or more provinces, if you like, find that they are unable to cope with the situation which has arisen within their boundaries, it may become the duty of the governments of those provinces to make such representations to the federal government and it would be the duty of the federal government to take those representations into consideration. But in the absence of any representations whatever from any provincial government to the federal government for aid of this kind, or representations indicating that there is an unemployment situation which the provinces cannot cope with, we have no right to say that there is any national unemployment problem in this countrj".
Let me point out the facts. We have had no representations from Premier Tolmie of British Columbia to the effect that there is in that province a problem which is not being and cannot be handled satisfactorily by his government. There has been no request from him to give aid to any municipalities. When this organized deputation to which reference has been made came from Winnipeg-and 1 shall have a word to say later with respect to it-to meet the federal government, a telegram came from Premier Tolmie stating that he had 'been requested to ask us to receive the delegation and he hoped we would receive them kindly, or words to that effect. There was no specific request that the government do anything; we were simply asked to listen to the delegation which, by the way,
I do not think had on it a single representative from the province besides members of parliament who happened to be in Ottawa for the session.
As regards Alberta, we have had no request from the premier or any member of the government of Alberta for assistance with respect to an unemployment situation there. As regards Saskatchewan, we have had no request from the premier or any member of the Saskatchewan government, although we have been meeting these gentlemen from these several provinces and discussing with them the conditions with respect to their respective provinces. There has been no request from any of them in regard to an unemployment situation with which they are finding it impossible or even difficult to cope. We have had no representations from the premier or the government of Manitoba to the effect th-at the Province of Manitoba is unable to handle its own situation. From the province of Ontario we have had none, but I quoted in the house in a previous debate a statement made by Premier Ferguson which no one will refute,

to the effect that Ontario had no unemployment problem. That statement was made during the month of January or February when conditions were supposed to be at their worst. The premier said that here and there there were difficulties, mostly centred in Toronto, but he thought they could well look after their own affairs.
The government received from the premier of Quebec a telegram, not to the effect that there was an unemployment situation demanding federal assistance, but saying that there was no such situation and that his province did not want any assistance. I should like to ask my hon. friends: Do they suppose there is no unemployment in Quebec? What about the longshoremen who, every year, have to give up their work because the St. Lawrence river is frozen over, and who go to their homes at the beginning of winter where they have to wait until the spring comes? They are humble men; they do not receive very much in the way of earnings. I doubt if their wages are comparable with those paid in western Canada. But I have not heard any complaint from them; they have accepted the situation this year as they have done year in and year out, recognizing that it is a condition of the trade with which their particular lot is cast. They seek to lay up in time of work what will enable them to tide over the period of the winter.
I come to Nova Scotia. We have had no communication from the premier of Nova Scotia or from the members of his government to the effect that there is an unemployment problem there which necessitates federal aid. We have had no communication trom the premier of New Brunswick or his government that they have an unemoloyment problem of the kind there. We have had no communication from the premier of Prince Ldward Island or his government that they have an unemployment situation. As a matter of lact, we have had hardly a voice from the whole eastern portion of Canada; we have had nothing, as a matter of fact, in the way of an expression of an unemployment problem excepting from a few persons who come for the most part from western Canada, and from certain parts only of western Canada, and from those in this house who are interested in the matter because of a point of view that they intend to take in discussions on the budget, when they will seek to have it appear that there is a serious unemployment problem in this country at the present time.
May I draw attention to this further fact? Not only have we had no communications

Unemployment-
Mr. Mackenzie King
from any of the premiers of any of the provinces, but we have had with the possible exception of Winnipeg no communication that I can at the moment recall, from any of the heads of municipalities.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) the other evening gave the other side of the story. He pointed out that while we had had no communications stressing unemployment, the premiers of every single province in this Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific, had during the month of January given out public statements to the effect that conditions were prosperous in their respective provinces. The minister quoted them in turn, one after the other, as saying that conditions were prosperous in the different provinces from coast to coast. Then the minister asked, very pertinently: How can we have a national unemployment problem if so far as each and every province is concerned its government reports prosperous conditions within its boundaries?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do governments
ever declare that there is anything else but prosperity during their regime?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can assure my hon. friend that they have, and we would very soon hear from them- if there were in fact an unemployment situation of the kind he would have us believe exists. They would be interested enough to bring it very soon to the attention of this administration. May I say this to my hon. friend, in order that he may get the real point of what I am saying? What does the suggestion amount to that is being made by those who ask us to dip into the federal treasury and take out money raised by taxation from the people of Canada as a whole to give it to certain of the provinces? It amounts to this. A Liberal government was returned to power in this country in 1921 on certain policies which we believe have made for prosperity, which we believe have made for economy, which we believe and which the country knows have made for a reduction of public debt and a reduction of taxation. We, as a Liberal government, are standing by our policies and are seeking to maintain our position. But hon. gentlemen opposite say to us: Now that you have got the country into this favourable position, we ask you to take part of the moneys that you may raise in taxes from the people of this Dominion as a whole, and give it to other administrations to spend, and to whom, if you please? To a Tory government in the province of British Columbia; to a Progressive government in the province of Alberta; to a 2419-78-i
Tory government in the province of Saskatchewan; to a Progressive government in the province of Manitoba; to a Tory government in the province of Ontario; to a Tory gov-trnment in the province of New Brunswick; to a Tory government in the province of Nova Scotia. No request has come from or been made on behalf of either Quebec or Prince Edward Island, where there are Liberal governments attending to the affairs of the province. If you wish to play politics, that is the way to play it. Give to these Tory governments and to those Progressive governments at the present or all times money raised by taxation of the people of Canada as a whole to spend in their respective provinces and thereby save them raising taxes for their own purposes.


Mr. IRVINE:: Who asked them to spend money?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are not getting the money to hoard it.


William Irvine: What money?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The money my hon. friends are asking to be paid out for unemployment relief to these provinces.


William Irvine: Did the Prime Minister read the resolution?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I conclude what I have to say? So far as giving money from this federal treasury to provincial governments is concerned, in. relation to this question of unemployment as it exists to-day,
I might be prepared to go a certain length possibly in meeting one or two of the western provinces that have Progressive premiers at the head of their governments-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -but I would not give a single cent to any Tory government.


Mr. BENNETT:: Shame!


Henry Herbert Stevens: Shame!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do my hon.
friends say "shame"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, shame!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is there to be ashamed of?


Henry Herbert Stevens: You ought to be ashamed of that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend
is getting very indignant. Something evidently has got under his skin. May I repeat what I have said? With respect to giving moneys
j	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
out of the federal treasury to any Tory government in this country for these alleged unemployment purposes, with these governments situated as they are to-day, with policies diametrically opposed to those of this government, I would not give them a five-cent piece.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why give it to a Progressive government?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My Tory
friends do not like it. They think that they are the only ones who are entitled to the administration of affairs. May I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that, having regard to the situation as we know it in this country at the present time, we have had no representations from any of the provinces expressing the need for assistance from the federal treasury to meet an unemployment situation, because of an emergency too great to be dealt with by the province itself, and in the absence of that I submit that hon. gentlemen who suggest that anything should be given out of the federal treasury have in support of their position not a leg left to stand on. There have been times when there have been emergent conditions, and where there have been emergent conditions this government has been quick to recognize them. When we came into power we found in this country a considerable amount of unemployment, a lot of unemployment arising in large part out of circumstances connected with the war. Men were returning from overseas and seeking to get back into civil employment, and there was no opportunity to secure employment for them. We recognized that provincial governments had a problem there with which they could not cope, and when they made representations to us, we met those representations, and here may I tell my hon. friends that we made at that time no difference between Liberal and Conservative. We gave our money just as freely to the Tory governments then as we ga\e it to the Liberal governments, because there was a necessity to meet and a very different situation prevailing from what there is at the present time in this country.


Mr. KAISER:: Older and wiser.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Herbert Bealey Adshead: What about the 8,000
that came in in January?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I turn to another phase? I have perhaps touched at sufficient length on the situation as to there being an emergent condition. Let me come now to the matter of unemployment insurance. Here perhaps I cannot do better than quote first of all what the hon. member for North Winnipeg said when he was speaking on his amendment. In making this quotation, may I say to him and to his neighbour from Winnipeg North Centre and to my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) and to a few others, especially where in order to give point to their remarks they
1230	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
proceed to draw deductions from press reports, that they should in selecting press reports in the first instance be very careful to see that the reports are accurate, and secondly that the quotations are accurate before they put on Hansard quotations or alleged quotations that are not truly representative of what has been said, or in accord with what the press generally has had to say in reporting a matter. I am not saying that my hon. friend did intentionally what I am about to disclose, but I say it served his purpose very well to make a certain quotation in the manner he did. Let me read what, my hon. friend said. On March 31, my hon. friend put the following on Hansard:
In a statement which the right hon. Prime Minister made to this delegation the impression was broadcast that the government was sympathetic and willing to do something to speed forward unemployment insurance. This is what he is reported to have said according to the Ottawa Evening Citizen of February 27:
"Eventually Canada will have a system of unemployment insurance. This was the only constructive way to deal with the unemployment situation and he hoped it would soon be possible to work out an insurance plan. Seasonal measures in the way of relief and public works were of no permanent assistance and an insurance plan offered the only constructive way of avoiding distress. Under it those who employed them would be compelled to contribute to a fund during their periods of employment and the insured would receive benefits when out of work."
That is from the Ottawa Citizen of February 27, 1930.
I have here the Ottawa Citizen of February 27, 1930, with the quotation my hon. friend placed on Hansard, and which he said bore out the point of view that at the time I was committing the government to some scheme of unemployment insurance. This is the quotation:
Eventually Canada will have a system of unemployment insurance.
Please note my non. friend read the quotation as if it went on to say that this was the only constructive way to deal with the unemployment problem. He however left out the important words which follow this first sentence:
Eventually Canada will have a system of unemployment insurance, Premier King predicted yesterday in replying to a deputation seeking federal aid to municipalities and provinces on unemployment relief. This, he said, was the only constructive way to deal with the unemployment situation and he hoped it would soon be jiossible to work out an insurance plan.
In other words, the paragraph I have just read was a lead put in by the newspaper reporter who sent this particular item to the press. It was a lead in which he gave his own

interpretation of the significance of what had been said and which, at most, he characterized as a prediction. May I direct the attention of the house to something further? I do not think this was in any way intentional on the part of my hon. friend, though it is rather singular that he preferred the Citizen version for his quotation. The quotation is:
Under it those who employed them would be compelled to contribute to a fund.
Exactly the same despatch appeared on the same day in the Ottawa Journal and in the Montreal Gazette as well as in other papers, but with an all important additional phrase. Both those papers have the following wording:
Under it those who expected relief and those who employed them would be compelled to contribute to a fund.
My hon. friend used the particular cutting which left out the words:	"Those who expected relief and."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What did the Prime Minister say, really?


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I explain that I took
the Ottawa Citizen because I thought it would be the paper that would not be unfriendly to the Prime Minister? That is the only reason I quoted from the Ottawa Citizen. I never took the trouble to look at it in any other paper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I accept the
explanation of my hon. friend. May I point out, however, not only to my hon. friend but to any members who are fond of using press references, that before they use them they ought to be perfectly sure that the report is accurate?


Abraham Albert Heaps: How can they do so?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By making
comparisons with despatches, in other papers dealing with the same matter; or, as was suggested this afternoon by an hon. member opposite, quoting Hansard instead of the press. My hon. friend by making use of a quotation which omitted all reference to contribution by employees was giving an entirely wrong interpretation of what I said.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What did the Prime Minister say, really?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will tell my hon. friend what I said. I have my words here. I will quote from the Montreal Gazette, which my hon. friend would no doubt prefer to any other paper.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not the slightest
preference, but I would like to know what the Prime Minister did say.

Unemploymen t-
-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Here is what
I said, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of February 27:
Seasonal measures in the way of relief and public works were of no permanent assistance, and an insurance plan offered the only constructive way of avoiding distress. Under it those who expected relief and those who employed them would be compelled to contribute to a fund during their periods of employment and would receive benefits when out of work.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I ask a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the Prime Minister
now state that insurance of that character is the only constructive way of giving relief for unemployment in this country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I do not
say it is the only way, but I say it is one way. I believe many hon. members here present, and I hope my hon. friend will be among them, will live to see the day when a system of social insurance is introduced which will help to relieve labour of many of the fears it now has with respect to unavoidable misfortune. If insurance is a good thing against fire, accident or loss of life, it is at least equally good for the family of the worker against unemployment, one of the many inevitable things he has to face.
May I remind hon. members how it came about that the statement I have referred to was made? It was given on the occasion when the delegation referred to waited on the government. I carefully reviewed, as far as I could, everything material that had been said by those who spoke, I could not state all in the short time at my disposal, but 1 left out so far as I am aware no essential feature. One gentleman-I cannot recall who he was and I do not know whether he was a Liberal, a Conservative, or what he was- in the course of the representations made spoke about unemployment insurance as a means of dealing with the problem. Stating my own views on the question, I said that I agreed with the gentleman who had said that unemployment insurance was one constructive way of dealing with the problem of unemployment. That is how the remark came about. Nothing further was said in regard to it. Out of that, however, whoever wrote the despatch wrote the interesting lead to the effect that there was a prediction that unemployment insurance would some day come about. I think that is a perfectly sound prediction, but it is a very different thing from saying that I was committing the government and parliament to a system of social or unemployment insurance. I merely stated a position as I believe it to be correct.
In order to make my attitude clear, I ought perhaps to say that my views on labour problems are not born of to-day. They are not put forward at this time or at this moment for the purpose of seeking political or party gain. I have strong convictions on some of these questions that affect the well being of the masses of the people, and I have expressed them in a manner which anybody who wishes to be acquainted with them can soon discover.
It has been said:
Oh that mine adversary had written a book.
I have in my hands a book written by myself over some thirteen years ago. At that time I was not in parliament, nor was I then thinking of reentering parliament. I was, however, thinking about the problems that other countries and we in this country would have to face in the days of reconstruction after the great war. I sought to turn to advantage, along with my studies, such experience as I had had in public life, and wrote this book which is entitled Industry and Humanity-A Study in the Principles Underlying Industrial Reconstruction. In stating those principles I set out clearly what I felt and believed in regard to labour problems and the only or most effective means of their solution. Amongst other subjects I naturally touched upon the problem of employment. At page 237 of this volume I find the following:
It is the fear of unemployment which lies at the root of most of the minor fears which labour entertains. The fear of unemployment is in reality the fear on the part of labour that capital will not be provided to carry on industry continuously, and under conditions which will afford adequate remuneration to effort. It is an outgrowth of the fallacy that quantity of work is necessarily limited. This fear gives rise to the fear that the introduction of new machinery, or the increased use of machinery already installed, will displace labour; the fear that speeding-up processes will diminish work; the fear that female, child, unskilled, or imported labour will be substituted for skilled; the fear that men of one trade will encroach upon the work for which men of other trades have been specially trained: the fear that the number of apprentices will be so increased as to lessen the requirement for skilled hands; and the fear that long hours and continuous overtime will exhaust employment.
That is but one reference to unemployment. I did not, however, stop at a mere mention of the case, but I wrote what I believed to be one of the remedies for the situation. On page 345 is the following reference to social insurance, of which unemployment insurance is one form:
Social insurance, which in reality is health insurance in one form or another, is a means employed in most industrial countries to bring
1232	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
about a wider measure of social justice, without, on the one hand, disturbing the institution of private property and its advantages to the community, or, on the other, imperilling the thrift and industry of individuals. Social insurance looks upon industry as in the nature of social service.
Here may I say a word to my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland)? He said yesterday that industry should not be a mere device for making profits. I agree with him absolutely. I believe we will get no solution of the problems of industry until we get the conception, yes until the world gets the conception that industry is not a mere device for the making of profits but that industry is in the nature of social service, and that every one who contributes to industry, whether it be by his capital, labour, or skill as a manager, is playing a part in the nature of a social service. Until we get that idea into the minds of the people and have our legislation based upon it, we will not reach a solution of unemployment or of any other social problem.
I quote further:
Social insurance looks upon industry as in the nature of social service. It regards the owner of land or capital as a capitalist, but ailso as a public trustee. It looks upon the worker in industry as a wage-earner, but equally as a necessary member of the community. It places the emphasis on personality rather than on property, and on life rather than on wealth.
Insurance against unemployment recognizes that an isolated human being, not less than a machine, must be oared for when idle. It recognizes also that nothing is so dangerous to the standard of life, or so destructive of minimum conditions of healthy existence, as widespread or continued unemployment. Where idleness is the fault of the social order, rather than of the individual concerned, it places the onus on the state to safeguard its own assets, not more in the interest of the individual than in the interest of social well-being.
Workmen's compensation, sickness and invalidity insurance, widows' pensions, maternity and infant benefits, recognize wherein personal relationships in industry have changed, and where as a consequence of new conditions permanent handicaps arise. The social legislation of which these measures are an expression rejects, as unworthy, the thought that men and wmen voluntarily incur accident, sickness, disease, enfeebled health, or dependence in distress, any more than they willingly seek enslavement of any kind. It recognizes the difficulty of differentiating between industrial accident and occupational disease; and between disease occasioned by occupation or its environments and illness otherwise contracted; also the impossibility of dissociating from economic conditions the social waste caused by excessive and preventable illness. It sees that debt binds health as it binds freedom, that sickness represents the most frequent factor of individual destitution, and that it is in painful crisis that handicaps for the whole of life are ofitenest imposed. To save the spirit of men from being crushed is quite as important 
as to prevent their bodies from being broken or infected. Many a niatn's spirit tails when, through no fault of his own, or of his family, efficiency is permanently impaired through accident, or savings become exhausted by unemployment or sickness, or where a new life in the home suggests an additional burden instead of a joy. Much invalidity and penury is due to lack of character and thrift; but much also is evidence of want of effective social control. What society fails effectively to prevent, society is in some measure under obligation to mend.
There is the statement I made at that time with respect to social insurance. I then proceed to give my views with respect to old age pensions, and by the view as expressed in this volume I stand now and am prepared to stand for the remainder of my life.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What does the Prime
Minister mean by the word "state"?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING; I will come to that. May I point out that at page 348, I had this to say:
It is the elimination of fears with respect to these fundamental requisites of health that labour speaks of as a national minimum standard of life.
I then point out wherein the Labour party of Great Britain put forward as its first principle the universal enforcement of the national minimum, and if my hon. friends care to go a little further they will find another statement at page 353. I might draw attention to the fact that this statement was in print sometime before the terms of the labour convention of the treaty of Versailles, was drafted:	'
It is not a national minimum only, but an international minimum, which is needed, if labour standards are to be protected against the undermining effects of the law of competing standards operating through international competition. The possible creation of some international agency to further the establishment and enforcement of international conventions aimed at the maintenance of an international minimum, is a subject of momentous concern.
It is well deserving of consideration in any discussion pertaining to a League of Nations which may constitute a part of the peace negotiations at the conclusion of the war.
There is a statement of my belief that the industrial problem, whether it relates to unemployment, accident, o^ age, disease, invalidity or otherwise, never will be solved satisfactorily to any nation or to any country until we have an international minimum standard of health which will prevail in all the countries of the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend laughs. He may well laugh; I am not surprised, because he has not always had-well.

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
I will not say what I had in mind. My hon. friend will find out one of these days, if he comes to interest himself in industrial problems, that in seeking a final solution he will have to take notice of what is happening in every part of the world, and will have to take account of the industrial standards that exist in all parts of the world. There is a law familiarly known as Gresham's law, which asserts that where two metals are in circulation, the one pure and the other base, if the metals are left in circulation long enough the base will drive out the pure. That law has been demonstrated to be true with regard to the precious metals in circulation in every country. The same law is I believe discoverable with respect to competing standards of health, or other standards of living and working conditions. Bring into competition a lower standard with a higher standard, and sooner or later the lower standard will drive the higher standard out of existence altogether. That is why the League of Nations, representing all the countries of the world, is seeking to bring about among the different nations uniform standards with respect to matters of health and working conditions and those matters dealt with by social legislation generally.
As far as the British Empire is concerned, as I said a moment ago, I believe its standards in industry and health are higher, taking it by and large, than those of any other political entity on earth. I believe also that within the British Empire we in Canada have higher standards for labour generally, and better working conditions, than exist in any other part of the empire, which means that our standards are the best in the world. If however, we are to maintain our standards it can be done only by the raising to our level of the standards of other countries that enter into competition with us.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Or by protecting our workmen from that competition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I expected to hear that from my hon. friend! Shut ourselves in and do nothing for anyone else. Last night my hon. friend was speaking on the birth of Christianity. I believe I can show him that no man lives unto himself alone, and that it is only by helping his neighbour that eventually he will help himself, and that the same is true of a nation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But in the meantime will the Prime Minister allow the unemployed in Canada to be subjected to the competition of those working under the lower standard to which he himself has referred, until such standard is raised to our level?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not dealing with a momentary situation; I am dealing with this industrial question in a broad way and as a world problem. I am not dealing with what is going to happen inside a circle around which a ring fence can be put.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would remind the Prime Minister that he cannot put a ring fence around Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I stand by
what I have said, that our own standards can be ultimately maintained only as the standards are raised to a like level in all competing countries. There are apparently some who hold to the idea of building up around Canada a tariff wall which will shut her off from competition with any and every other country in the world. For the next month or two we shall hear about the erection of tariff walls which will serve to restrict our trading with the countries of the world. But were this to occur, what would be the position shortly after such a policy had been effected? More and more in the way of unemployment.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It is high enough now.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: When we fail to keep it
high enough it brings about unemployment in this country, but creates employment in other countries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for East Calgary asked me about the resolutions of the convention with respect to labour in the peace treaty of Versailles, and I think he as well as some other hon. members in the course of their remarks commented upon the fact that the Liberal party had incorporated into its platform the various principles which were laid down in the labour convention of the treaty of Versailles. That is perfectly correct; and let me say that the liberal party of Canada was the first political party in the world to incorporate in its platform those principles; and they were incorporated in their entirety. I think I am safe in saying that those principles have not been more fully recognized or maintained by any other country in the world than they have been by Canada. I would like to quote them to the house.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Were they not framed
by Sir Robert Borden?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think Sir Robert Borden ever saw them until they were printed, though he may have. At the Liberal convention in August, 1919, I presented a resolution which reads as follows-


James Dew Chaplin: Is this the chart?
1234	COMMONS
Unemploymen t-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon.
member will look at the chart he will be amazed at how far we have gone in the directions indicated. I said:
I have the privilege of presenting to this gathering a resolution of the committee on the subject of labour and industrial relations. I shall read the resolution first, and then address myself to the subjects and contents mentioned in it:
"Resolved that the committee recommends that the National Liberal Convention accepts in their entirety as a part of the Liberal platform, in the spirit in which they have been framed and in so far as the special circumstances of the country will permit, the terms of the labour convention and general principles associated with the League of Nations and incorporated in the conditions of peace.
"These methods and principles for regulating labour conditions set forth in the treaty are as follows: "
I ask you to note these words, "as set forth in the treaty,"
The question was raised by some hon. member as to whether or not I had used the phrase that labour was merely a commodity, and I think that question will be answered by the following:
I ask you to note these words, "as set forth in the treaty," because the committee thought it well to make an exact copy of what is contained in the treaty itself.
"First-The guiding principle that labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce."
With regard to that, I said:
Had the committee been framing that resolution themselves, I think that they would have omitted the word "merely." The labourer and his labour cannot be separated, and the members of the committee feel that the resolution would be stronger and would more fully express the sentiments which they have at heart if it read:
"First-The guiding principle that labour should not be regarded as a commodity or article of commerce."
The word "merely" being left out. But we prefer to take the exact wording of the articles as drawn up at the peace conference.
"Second-The right of association for all lawful purposes by the employed as well as by the employers."
I think that principle has been generally recognized in Canada. The next clause reads:
"Third-The payment to the employed of a wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as this is understood in their time and country."
This administration has stood four-square for the principle as there enunciated. That it was a principle of the Liberal party was demonstrated in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, whose government was the first in Canada to introduce a fair wages resolution and to put it in force in government contracts.

Liberal administration was the first to create in this country a department of labour in the federal government. The Liberal administration was the first to put upon the statute books of Canada laws respecting conciliation and arbitration in industrial disputes. I could mention many other such reforms initiated by Liberal administrations. The next clause reads:
"Fourth-The adoption of an 8-hour day or a 48-hours week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been obtained."
May I remind the house that there is now before parliament a bill w'hich has been introduced by the present administration through the Minister of Labour to make the eight-hour day compulsory to the extent that the parliament of Canada can do so with respect to the employees of the federal public service and persons employed under contracts for Dominion public works. The next clause reads:
"Fifth-The adoption of a weekly rest of at least twenty-four hours w-hich should include Sunday wherever practicable."
I think that for the most part has been accomplished. There may be cases where it was not observed; where they exist I think they should be at once eliminated. No man should in carrying out the duties of his occupation be required to work or to absent himself from his family for seven days in the week; nor should any woman have to do so. Labour on six days in the week should be enough, no matter what the occupation. The next clause reads:
"Sixth-The abolition of child labour and the imposition of such limitations on the labour of young persons as shall permit the continuation of their education and assure their proper physical development."
The problem of child labour comes under provincial jurisdiction; we have nothing to do with it beyond obeying in our own field the principle laid down. So far as the present administration is in a position so to do it will continue to lend its influence in support of this principle.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Do not all these things apply to the federal government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We might
desire to have it so, for example, that there shall be no child labour in factories, but this parliament has no power to enact a law of the kind; it has been left by the constitution to the provinces. I would remind my hon. friend again that the mere fact that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over questions which deal with hours of labour, minimum wages, working conditions

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
and the like, is to my mind conclusive evidence that the provinces were intended to be the ones primarily concerned with all such phases of the industrial situation. Clause 7 reads:
"The principle that men and women should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value."
That principle has I believe been recognized so far as our public service is concerned. Clause 8 reads:
"The standard set by law in each country with respect to the conditions of labour should lyave due regard to the equitable economic treatment of all workers lawfully resident therein."
So far as we have to do with that matter, we have recognized it. The next clause reads:
Ninth-"Every state should make provision for a system of inspection in which women should take part, in order to insure the enforcement of the laws and regulations for the protection of the employed."


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What is meant by the
state?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I intended to
anticipate my hon. friend's question, but he was too quick. It means the recognized political entity possessing the necessary authority. In the case of Canada under our constitution as drafted the state would mean not the federal government, but the governments of the several provinces. The clause reads:
Ninth-"Each state should make provision for a system of inspection in which women should take part in order to insure the enforcement of the laws and regulations for the protection of the employed."
The laws and regulations for the protection of the employed come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces; they would be the state so far as enactment and enforcement are concerned. We could not appoint women inspectors to enforce these laws even if we wished; we have no authority. The day may come when it will be thought desirable, and I believe that in the course of years industrial legislation in all the provinces will be made uniform. I hope the day will come when legislation regarding industrial matters will be uniform in all the countries of the world, because until that day does come the attainment of higher standards will continue to be prejudiced by possible invasion and undermining by the lower standards.
Those were the principles incorporated in the convention of the League of Nations and they were adopted by the Liberal party in its platform. Every one of those principles has been lived up to and fulfilled as far as has
been possible. But we went still further in dealing with labour problems. Our resolution reads:
And further resolved:
1.	That the introduction into the government of industry of principles of representation whereby labour and the community, as well as capital, may be represented in industrial control, and their interests safeguarded and promoted in the shaping of industrial policies.
We have sought, wherever we could, to see that labour's voice should be heard with respect to matters of industrial policy with which labour was concerned.
2.	-
And this concerns more particularly the one question we are discussing.
That in so far as may be practicable-
"Practicable" means amongst other things having regard to what is set out in the constitution of the country.
-having regard for Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence in old age. and other disability, which would include old age pensions, widows' pensions, and maternity benefits, should be instituted by the federal government in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces; and that on matters pertaining to industrial and social legislation an effort should be made to overcome any question of jurisdiction between the Dominion and the provinces by effective cooperation between the several governments.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The British North America Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Everything has to be in accordance with the constitution. May I ask this of my hon. friend: If with regard to these matters there is to be cooperation, between the Dominion and the provinces, is it not right, reasonable and just that those who under the constitution are given exclusive jurisdiction to legislate with respect to such matters, should be the first to .move in seeking the necessary cooperation? That is where I take exception to the .attitude of some of my hon. friends. They always insist that in matters of this kind the federal government should take action before any of the provincial governments move. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said the otheT day that when he was in the west, the mayor and councillors of some municipality begged of him, when he came to Ottawa, to put in a word with regard to the unemployment situation. May I ask him:	Why did
they go to him? Why did they not go to the representatives of the province who make the laws with respect to these matters? I think I know why they went to him. They recognized in him a friend and advocate of
1236	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
the cause of labour and they believed he would do all he could, but I think he ought to have told them at onice that -much as he would like to do what he could! for them, the first court of appeal, if I may so describe it, was the provincial government, and that they ought to appeal to it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That deputation had already waited on the provincial government, and our provincial government is in favour of a scheme by which ithe provinces will cooperate with the federal authorities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the provinces ask us to interest ourselves with them in a scheme of the kind, we will be more than ready to consider their representations. But until there is some representation made from the provinces, I think I must repeat what I said the other day: namely, that we stand ready to cooperate but we feel in this matter which so vitally affects the provinces themselves we should wait until we are asked by the provinces themselves. I do not by that mean all of the provinces; I mean a reasonable number, at least two others-before we should be expected to cooperate with them in -these particular matters.


James Dew Chaplin: Why did the Prime
Minister -put this in the federal program?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I come to the next one?
3.	The representation of labour on federal commissions pertaining to labour matters.
That has been observed.
4.	Effective legislation for the conservation of human life and health.
Much legislation of that character has been introduced by this and- -the previous Liberal administration, and has passed this parliament.
5.	The representation of labour on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways.
I may remind my hon. friends that the present Liberal government was the first and the only government to give labour direct representation on the directorate of the Canadian National Railway.
6.	That the system of retraining so-ldiers unfitted for their past work, because of -physical injuries, be extended to disabled workers in industry.
That, I -think, -might be 'Carried out, but it again coimes more directly under the jurisdiction of the provinces.
7.	More effective restriction of Chinese immigration.
Another undertaking that has been fulfilled by the present Liberal administration to the

point of a restriction which in fact has amounted to complete exclusion of Chinese.
8.	The federal incorporation of cooperative associations.
That is a matter which is receiving consideration.
9.	The acceptance of the principle of proportional representation.
That remains to- be brought about, and I hope it -may be before very long.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond.):: That
will be a new plank.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will not be a new plank, but it will be one for which I venture to say my hon. friend will not give me his support.
10.	Immediate and drastic action by the government with respect to the high cost of living and profiteering.
Since we came into office in 1921, very much has been done in both of these directions. Profiteering has been stopped, and the cost of living materially reduced. And finally:
11.	Restoration of the control of the executive by parliament and of parliament by the people through a just franchise and its exercise under free conditions, and a discontinuence of government by order in council.
Every resolution put forward at that convention relating to the attitude of the Liberal party in respect to the problems of labour has been carried out almost to the letter since this government took office. That is the Liberal record in regard to these industrial matters.
I referred a moment ago to the care which I thought ought to have been taken by the hon. member for North Winnipeg in quoting from the press. I meant to pay my compliments to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) who did not even quote the text, but who confined his remarks to quoting the headings that had been put on by newspaper editors.


Mr. MANION:: That is absolutely unfair,
because the Prime Minister asked me to quote the text and I read exactly what he read himself to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon friend was leaving the matter where it was when I asked him to go ahead and read the article itself, and then he only read part of it.


Robert James Manion: I had only forty minutes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I had let
the matter go at that, he would have sent out to the country headlines with which I had had nothing whatever to do and would have had them represent my position before the country.

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King


Robert James Manion: That was the conclusion
drawn by all the newspapers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I am
now about to say refers not merely to what was said by one member, but to a deliberate effort on the part of a large number of hon. gentlemen opposite to misrepresent my position with respect to old age pensions and several other matters which involve grants from the federal treasury to the provinces. I have already explained pretty fully the reasons why I take the position I do in seeking to defend the federal treasury and in so doing to keep to their respective fields of effort both the provinces and the Dominion. When on a previous occasion we were discussing this matter of grants from one treasury to another, I said I thought it was an unsound principle; in fact, I think I used the expression that it was a vicious principle to have one body raise the taxes and another body spend the people's moneys thus raised. Is there any hon. member who will disagree with me in that statement? There is none. That is the extent of the statement I made. I was referring to a principle of financing, speaking simply in relation to what is sound and what is unsound in financing. Anyone interested in financing, whether of a municipality, a province, a dominion, an empire, or a league of nations, will, I think, admit it is unwise, an unsound, a wrong principle for one body to have to do with raising the taxes and another to be concerned with the spending of the money so raised, that other body not having to account to the representatives of those who have paid the taxes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The foundation of our
whole financial structure is grants to the provinces by subsidies that they do not earn.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought my
hon. friend, who is a lawyer, would come along with that quibble.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the foundation of
our whole financial structure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will ask my
h'on. friend now: Does he think it a sound principle that the federal government should raise taxes and then give that money, in whole or in part, to the provinces to spend?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The foundation of our
whole financial structure is grants from the Dominion to the provinces of money not raised by the provinces.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend does not answer the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point
this out to my hon. friend: When the Dominion was formed certain obligations were placed on the provinces and certain on the Dominion. It was recognized at that time that in connection with the confederation agreement it was necessary, and might continue to be necessary, to give to the provinces certain specific amounts in order to make the balances even, if I may so express it. In other words, what the fathers of confederation were seeking to do was to give each a distinctive field or jurisdiction; but they recognized that in giving to each a distinctive field the provinces would to a certain degree be handicapped in the matter of raising revenues, and they met that situation by fixing certain definite subsidies to be paid from the federal treasury to the provinces. Those subsidies had no strings of any kind attached to them. They became the complete property of the provinces to deal with as they pleased, and were so recognized as part of the pact of confederation. That in itself is, I submit, a reason why we should not go further in dealing with federal moneys in relation to the provinces. If the provinces have not enough money to carry on their functions as assigned to them by the constitution of this country, then there should be a further revision of the financial terms of confederation. There has been already, may I say, one or two financial revisions for that purpose. We should give to the provinces what, if any, is their due, in that regard. But once we have given them subsidies of a specific amount and said that they are free to deal with them as they see fit, they should not be permitted to come to the federal treasury for additional amounts, one day for highways, another for technical education, another for old age pensions-one thing after another, apparently without limit. I am speaking now wholly from the point of view of what I regard as sound financing.
To make my position perfectly clear, may I say this? I have been from the beginning one of the strongest advocates of technical education. I believe in transcontinental highways and in other highways. I believe in old age pensions. I believe in unemployment insurance. I believe in all these things, but if they are to be carried out it must be done in accordance with the spirit as well as the letter of the constitution. Discussing this matter on the 21st of February of last year, I said:
May I direct -attention to this further fact which bears immediately upon the grants from the federal treasury to the provinces.
1238	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
I am reading this now more particularly because my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre in his remarks sought, I think, to have the inference drawn that I was opposed to old age pensions. I hope that he did not, and I think I can expect him to say that he did not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is one other point of order, Mr. Speaker, that I would raise at this time. The Prime Minister said a few minutes ago, referring, I presume, to myself and others, that there had been a deliberate effort to misrepresent him. I suggest that that is not in order. So far as I am concerned there has been no deliberate effort to misrepresent him. I quoted from Hansard, and I did not intend to imply that the Prime Minister was in any way opposed in a general way to old age pensions; but what I did read from Hansard was that he was opposed to the financial arrangements underlying the existing old age pensions scheme, that he regarded it as being based upon a vicious principle, and I think I am justified in saying that by the text which he is now about to quote. But, Mr. Speaker, I shall have to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the words, if he applies them to me, that I deliberately attempted to misrepresent him. I did not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend
says that he did not, certainly I accept his word at once. I confess that I was very much surprised when I heard him speak as he did, and my own words as they appear on Hansard will show that I said he was not following his usual method. I confess to no little surprise at the way in which since last year some hon. members opposite have sought to have the people of this country from one end to the other believe that I was opposed to old age pensions, that I so stated, and had said that old age pensions constituted a vicious principle. When I used that expression I was dealing wholly with a certain method of financing. I am going to read now the text in Hansard to which my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre says he was referring. When he looks at that text he will find that I began and ended with a reference to the principle of financing, and that what I said had nothing whatever to do with the question of whether the principle of old age pensions was sound or unsound. What I said was this (Hansard, 1929, page 316):
I believe that everyone who has given any attention to public finance will agree that it is a thoroughly vicious system to have one body raise taxes and another body expend the money thus secured. In other words, give to the prov-

inces these grants from the federal treasury, without their being obliged to raise the money themselves by taxation, and you will not get, with respect to expenditure, that careful supervision which would be exercised if the provinces themselves were obliged to raise the money in the first instance. It is a bad system, a thoroughly vicious system, and that is the reason why the present administration has been seeking to put an end to a system that grew up at a time when the country was in the throes of war or had to meet a post-war situation-a system which, had it been permitted to develop, would have become thoroughly destructive of anything in the shape of economy with respect to the expenditure of the people's money.
Mr. Ladner:	What about old age pensions?
Mr. Mackenzie King:	I am glad my hon.
friend speaks of that. There is another ease where we are giving to the provinces a lot of money in addition to what they are raising.
That has no reference to old age pensions as a vicious principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read the rest of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It goes on:
Mr. Ladner:	Is that vicious?
Mr. Bennett: A thoroughly vicious principle?
Mr. Mackenzie King:	I think it is, yes


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I still submit to my hon. friends opposite that there is not one of them who in his heart and mind believes that I was suggesting either directly or indirectly that old age pensions constituted a vicious principle. They may applaud as they like. If they wish to go on repeating this misrepresentation they are free to do it, but I do not think that they will gain much in the country by that kind of misrepresentation.
May I continue to quote and read the next question asked in that same debate last year:
Mr. Ladner:	Why doesn't the government
provide for old age pensions itself instead of shifting it to the provinces?
Mr. Mackenzie King:	It is the province's
obligation, and so far as this government is concerned we have sought to safeguard the public treasury to the extent at least of one-half of the required expenditure.
In other words. I was making it plain that in connection with the contributions we were making under the old age pension scheme, we had recognized the unsoundness of the principle of taking money from the federal treasury and giving it to another body to spend, by attaching certain conditions as to how and when and where that money should be spent, safeguarding so far as we could a principle that was unsound. The question of old age pensions was so all-important, having regard to existing conditions, that in order to get old age pensions under way it became necessary for us to adopt a system of financing that

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
was not sound. That however is very far from meaning and does not mean that the old age pension system is not sound. What I think is this: when there is a further revision of the finances of this country matters should be so arranged that the moneys for the whole of any such expenditure should thereafter be raised solely by the one body primarily concerned, instead of being raised in part by the provinces and in part by the Dominion. Compensation of a necessary amount should be paid to make up for whatever probable loss there may be from abandoning the present method of grants in aid.
I hope I shall not have to refer to this question again. I corrected the misrepresentation last year when it was made. That is why I find fault with my hon. friends-that notwithstanding that last year I made it perfectly clear in this parliament that I was being misrepresented, they have persisted in this misrepresentation. Here was the statement I made; I quote from Hansard, February 21, 1929, page 322:
Mr. Mackenzie King: Let me make myself perfectly clear with respect to that. I did not say that the principle of the old age pensions is vicious; I say that the principle of giving money from one treasury to another is, having one authority raise the money by taxation, and the other permitted to spend without the obligation of taxation, and it was the conference with the provincial premiers that helped to convince me on that point, particularly what the provincial premiers themselves said.
Then my hon. friend is recorded as saying:
Mr. Bennett: I am glad the premier of Ontario has had at 'least one good effect upon the Prime Minister by having a conference with him, because the Prime Minister has seen the error of his ways after coming into contact with Conservatives at the Dominion-provincial conference.
And yet my hon. friend when he was touring the west took this volume of Hansard and read to his audiences the part containing Mr. Ladner's quotation to be found at page 316; and never once made the slightest reference to this Dart on page 322 of which he himself had the fullest knowledge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is untrue, Mr. Speaker. I was careful enough to read what the right hon. gentleman said in Hansard. My criticism was then, and is still-what does this country think of a man who as Prime Minister denounces as vicious the principle which he put in operation twelve months before?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now we have the hon. gentleman's measure exactly. Read the Hansard reports and you will not find in all that I have said, speaking on my responsibility not only as a member of this house but as Prime Minister, any reference to old age pensions as being a vicious principle. Notwithstanding I have made this clear again to-day, my hon, friend now comes again forward with a statement which is intended to convey that impression throughout the country.
Mr. BENNETT; Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask, is this Prime Minister really responsible?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is he responsible?
Some hon. MEMBERS; Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does he realize-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, does he
realize-	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I must ask the hon. gentleman to take his seat. If he means the word "responsible" in a derogatory sense he will have to withdraw it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have used it exactly in its right sense. The question is this: the right hon. gentleman said: If you read Hansard to-morrow you will find what I said. 1 wonder. Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman's memory is of any use, because he answered Mr. Ladner and myself by saying: Yes, I think the contribution by the Dominion of moneys for old age pensions is a thoroughly vicious principle.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. DUNNING:: No, he did not say that; that is not what he said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read it again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
fortunately the country has Hansard and the passage speaks for itself.


An hon. MEMBER:: The -country is just
waiting for the opportunity to answer.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.
M-r. MACKENZIE KING: Again I repeat what I have said. I hope I shall not have to refer to this matter again, but if my hon. friend and others wish to continue their misrepresentation, as far as I am concerned they are free to do it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Air. Speaker, I ask that
the right hon. gentleman withdraw the word
1240	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
"misrepresentation." Your honour ruled the other day that it was unparliamentary. The rules of this house must be observed by the Prime Minister.


Hewitt Bostock: According to Bourinot,
page 361, the expression "misrepresentation" is not parliamentary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend thinks I have used any word that I should not have used, I am quite prepared to withdraw it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, that is not
sufficient. Let the withdrawal be ample and complete.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What does
my hon. friend want me to say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: To withdraw the use of the word "misrepresentation" as being against the rules of this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as I
have in any way transgressed the rules of the house in the use of the word "misrepresentation," I withdraw the expression. But I do not withdraw my statement that my attitude on this matter has been misrepresented and is being misrepresented.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, you also
ruled the other day that a member could not say indirectly what it would be unparliamentary for him to say directly.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the withdrawal
is complete as applied to the hon. gentleman. I repeat that as regards the expression "misrepresentation," Bourinot at page 361 gives several examples of unparliamentary terms, and amongst them is "misrepresentation."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I had hoped to have opportunity to devote some part of my remarks to enlarging a little on the constructive side of this question of unemployment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friends need not laugh. I will give them twenty minutes of it. May I say of the addresses that have been delivered in the course of this debate, I think the most thoughtful and the most helpful, if I may distinguish between them, was the one made by my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland). He did seek to give to the house some appreciation of at least one very important phase of the problem of unemployment. He did so, I thought, exceptionally well, and in a manner which revealed full and careful study. His remarks

had largely to do with the effect of discoveries and inventions, and he pointed out how through the course of the years under the agency of invention and of discovery labour was repeatedly being placed in the position where it was finding its former occupations disappearing and was forced to get new training or to go into some new branch of trade or industry or was left by the wayside altogether. My hon. friend went on to suggest that it would be well for the government to appoint a commission to make a survey of conditions in the country bearing on the question of unemployment. May I say this to him? If I believed a survey would throw any light whatever on the problem beyond what we already possess, I would recommend to my colleagues the appointment of a commission for the purpose. But my hon. friend's own speech was the best answer that could be made as to where a commission would be wholly inadequate to deal at all effectively with this situation. The situation that faces labour, as we look ahead a few years, is going to arise out of conditions that are largely unforeseen at the present moment. New inventions are coming, new discoveries are going to be made which will bring other processes into existence and eliminate in part, if not altogether, certain of the callings and trades and employment connected therewith, that are being carried on at the present time, and these changes will inevitably bring about unemployment to large numbers of men. Discoveries of new processes brought about by scientific research, discoveries of new portions of the earth's surface and of much that lies beneath the surface, and methods of production, distribution and exchange-these things are going to recur and recur throughout the future, and no commission appointed will ever be able to anticipate what may come about in that regard. More than that, unless I have failed altogether to convey to hon. members the conception I have of this labour problem, namely, that it is a world problem, it must be apparent that conditions so far as this country is concerned in matters of unemployment are going to depend, not so much on what is going to happen in Canada itself in the first instance as on what happens outside and beyond the bounds of this country. No commission can foresee what will happen. Let me take the opening parts of my hon. friend's speech. He very straightforwardly said that the present depression so far as it exists was due, first of all, to the western wheat crop not being as large as it had been in previous years; in the second place, to the fact that the crop had not been marketed to anything like the extent

Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King
it had been in former years; and in the third place, to the railway earnings and other earnings being smaller in consequence. He spoke about conditions in Great Britain and the extent to which the markets over yonder were being affected by what had taken place and was taking place in other countries. He also referred to the collapse which took place on the stock exchange. My hon. friend is right in stating that these are in the main the causes that account for any existing depression and consequent unemployment; but what body of experts could have foreseen so long as a year ago that anything erf the kind was about to happen?


Edward Joseph Garland: It was not so much my purpose that the commission should examine into the actual causes of unemployment as to try to find a solution for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am pointing out to my hon. friend that the solution cannot be found in any one formula; it cannot be found in any one method. It can only be found by each authority doing what it can within its own jurisdiction, and in cooperation with all other authorities. It is moreover a world problem.
My hon. friend asks for a solution of this question. I tell him that the only way in which this country can hope to solve the unemployment problem to the degree to which it is possible for it alone to solve it, is not by the adoption of some single measure relating specifically to unemployment, but by making prevail in regard to all its policies those principles which will make for greater productivity in our country and for an increase in employment as a consequence. May I point out that at the end of the term of office of every Conservative administration which has been in power in Canada and has sought to enforce its doctrines of high protection, we have had a period of depression such as had not before existed in the country's history. May I point out with some degree of pride that whenever Canada has a Liberal administration holding office for any length of time, after the first few years the country has begun to show prosperity. Prosperity has rapidly increased. This has not been due to chance; it has been due to a difference in the policies which have been put into force by Conservative and Liberal governments respectively. When the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into office in 1896 it found this country in a condition of depression, the like of which had not been known theretofore in the history of Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the hon. gentleman
remember 1877 or 1878?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not as old as my hon. friend, but I do remember 1896. I remember the discussions of the industrial situation as it existed at the time. From the day Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power conditions began to improve and from then until the day he left office this country enjoyed more in the way of prosperity than at any previous time. It was a golden era. I will come down to more recent times; I will come to the time of the present administration. What are the facts? When we came into office in 1921 what did we find? We found that the public debt was being increased at the rate of $92,000,000 per year; we found a condition of extreme depression. We heard for some time after nothing but cries of blue ruin and whispers of death. Our railroads were disorganized, and throughout the country everything was in about as bad a condition as it could possibly be. What has been the change? Once our policies were given a chance to take effect, from that time on we have witnessed steady reduction in the debt of the country, steady reduction in taxation, increase in production, increase in trade, increase in industry in its several branches, and a degree of prosperity which has not been paralleled since the days of Laurier, and which has never been equalled in the history of our country. I say to my hon. friend from Bow River, and I hope he will agree with me, that during the next few years more will depend upon the policies of the government with respect to trade and production than upon anything else-upon wise fiscal policies. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition talks about sending raw materials out of the country.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I say to the right hon. gentleman that more depends on trade and consumption in the next few years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend
the leader of the opposition suggests as a remedy that we must not allow the export of any of our raw materials or their manufacture in other countries. I notice my hon. friends have published within the past day or two a small political pamphlet in which amongst other things that argument is stressed. What are the raw materials of this country which my hon. friend is going to stop being sent out if and when he assumes office? Will his policy apply to agricultural products? Will he prevent raw materials of that kind going out?

1242	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Mackenzie King


James Dew Chaplin: No, the United States is doing that now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What would
Canada not give at this time if we could only market more of our raw materials in the way of grains and other agricultural products? What would Great Britain not give at this time if she could find wider markets for her coal, which is another raw material? Every country is blessed by Providence with certain great resources. They are at different stages of development; it does with these resources as is best for the country itself. In regard to mining, we have vast resources from which there are raw materials we must export if we are to gain the advantage we should from their possession. We cannot consume in any form a fraction of these raw materials within the country itself. In connection with one or two classes of minerals we may possess more than other parts of the world, something of a monopoly, but generally throughout the world these things are distributed amongst the different countries. If we do not continue to sell them some other country will, and we shall lose the market we already have. Is my hon. friend going to stop the export of the products of the different mines that exist in different parts of Canada to-day? I wonder where the working men who are employed in mining operations will get their wages when that sort of thing begins. Where will the home markets be when we lose the markets we have across the seas or to the South and which through our exports we have worked so hard to gain? When it comes to fisheries, another great natural resource, will we stop their export too? And what about our lumber, the products of the forest, is that trade too to be stopped? If we are going to prohibit the export of our raw material will other nations continue to send their raw materials to us.
To-day my hon. friends opposite were talking about our trade with the United States. They know very well that we receive more in a year in the way of raw materials from the United) States than we send to the United-States. If we are going to refuse to send raw materials to other countries, can we expect them to contract to trade in raw materials with us? What about our iron and steel industry? We get most of the raw material, most of the iron ore, from the United States, and the whole iron and steel industry in our country is largely dependent upon it. Are my hon. friends going to say: We will give nothing in the shape of raw materials to a country that supplies us with these essentials to our own industry? What about our cotton industry? We get most of our raw cotton

from the United States. It gives work to thousands of men here. Is my hon. friend's policy one which will stop the trading back and forth in these raw materials in which each of us has a special advantage?
Hon. gentlemen opposite are fond of talking about the home market; it is not the home market they are thinking about so much as a monopoly of the home market for the benefit of a feiw of their privileged friends. Does my hon. friend know we will be able to have a home market -in this country only as we have purchasing power, and that we will get purchasing power only as we are able to sell our products in the markets of the world? The wider your foreign trade, the better will be your home trade. I tell my hon. friend that by his policy and the policy of his friends no ships will be going out of Vancouver or Halifax harbours. When we get what my hon. friend spoke about a moment ago, a tariff wall around this country which will keep everything fro-m coming in and as a consequence prevent everything from going out, you will soon have again the condition of stagnation and unemployment which we have witnessed in previous times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise to a question ol
privilege.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to finish my remarks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a question of
privilege, Mr. Speaker. A few minutes ago I dealt with the "vicious principle" of old age pensions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit that my hon. friend wishes to deprive me of the next five minutes in which I should like to finish my speech.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so, I have just received this from the library.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. A question of privilege is always in order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A few minutes ago I stated my recollection of a statement which was made last year by the right hon. Prime Minister. I stated he had said that the payment of money to the provinces by the Dominion for old age pensions was a thoroughly vicious principle. I now read from page 316 of Hansard of last year:
Mr. Ladner: What about old age pensions?
Mr. Mackenzie King:	I am glad my hon.
friend speaks of that. There is another case where we are giving to the provinces a lot of money in addition to what they are raising.
Mr. Ladner:	Is that vicious?

Unemployment-Mr. Guthrie
Mr. Bennett:	A thoroughly vicious principle.
Mr. Mackenzie King:	I think it is, yes. I
have come to the conclusion that it is a thoroughly vicious principle.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That has been read before; I read it myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You denied the statement, and so did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend the mover of this resolution that when he introduced his amendment he was no doubt anxious to provide an opportunity to discuss the general question of unemployment. It is unfortunate that my hon. friend found it necessary to introduce the matter in the form of an amendment on going into supply. Probably he did so because he felt it to be his only opportunity, and that if he did not do so someone else might get ahead of him.
May I say to my hon. friend: that I hope when the debate is concluded he will feel that his purpose has been served and that we will have had a sufficient discussion of this question? I think the debate will run on in all likelihood for another day or two, and by the time it is finished I hope he will feel that the discussion has been ample, and that he will ask to have his amendment withdrawn. I do not think my hon. friend wishes to be put in the position of opposing the policies with regard to labour and other matters for which this government stands, and I do not think he wishes to place this government in the position where supply cannot be granted. We cannot accept his amendment for the reason that amongst other things we would be voting against the granting of our own supply. If permission to withdraw his amendment is not given by the unanimous consent of the house he and others might I think very well take the view that the discussion has accomplished the purpose he had in view.
May I say to my hon. friends who sit diagonally opposite that before very long they will find out-and particularly those who come from the western provinces-that hon. gentlemen opposite are anxious to unite in a vote with them in an effort to further their policies of higher protection. Hon. members opposite want to have those who are members of the Labour party and those who are members of the Progressive party vote with them on an amendment on going into supply. They desire that so that when we come to our next budget debate-because this has been practically a budget debate-they can claim this division as evidence that there is an unemployment problem due in some way to the policies of
2419-79)
the present government, and that the policies that should be adopted are not those of this government or policies that may be akin, but, the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite, which we know are now and always will be simply matters of increased protection. I ask hon. members to study the position into which they are being drawn in connection with this particular debate. So far as the wording of the amendment is concerned we cannot accept it for still another reason. By implication it suggests that the government is not seeking to do anything in the matter of the relief of unemployment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is true-or
at least I put the question: is it not true?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I just
say this: my belief is that every major policy of the government has some bearing on the question of unemployment. I believe the policies of the present administration have brought our country from depression to prosperity and helped as nothing else could have done to lessen unemployment. I believe my hon. friend who has just interrupted is sincere in his desire to help labour and his fellow men. I wish he would believe that there are other hon. members in this house who are just as anxious as he is to do the same. Just because we do not see eye to eye with him on his particular nostrum, I hope he will not believe that we have not as much heart and soul as those who may label themselves the friends of labour to the exclusion of all others.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this discussion, but a day or two ago I received from the riding which,I have the honour to represent in this house, communications which stated that on account of the unemployment in the city in which I live, it was considered to be my duty to lay before the government and before the house the real situation existing not only in that city but throughout the western portion of Ontario.
Since the opening of parliament I have been under the impression that there was but one opinion in this house as to the existence of a very critical situation with regard to employment or unemployment; I thought that it had been a matter of common knowledge

Unemployment-Mr. Guthrie
for months past in every quarter of the house and in every quarter of the country that such conditions existed. This matter has been referred to continually in the newspapers of the country regardless of their political affiliations; hardly a day passes that public attention is not drawn to this vital question. I have come to the conclusion after hearing members discussing this matter in the corridors of this house that there is but one mind on the subject, that unemployment does exist in Canada to a very grave extent. Until I heard the speech delivered this afternoon by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) I was not aware that there were two opinions in the matter. I have listened with the greatest interest to the remarks of the hon. members for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and East Calgary (Mr. Adshead), as well as to the speeches delivered by hon. members on the other side of the house, notably by the hon. members for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) and North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh), and by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan). Not one of those hon. members attempted to deny that a serious condition exists in the matter of unemployment; until the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon it was accepted as the real situation.
I am inclined to think that the Prime Minister is significantly misinformed in regard' to the conditions with respect to unemployment. I can well understand that the cry of the unemployed has not penetrated the comfortable seclusion of the Prime Minister of Canada, but I cannot understand why the Minister of Labour was not aware to the fullest extent of all the facts. We who are not connected with the government know a great deal about this question. We cannot shut our eyes to the facts; we know that they exist; we know that deputations have come to Ottawa to meet the Minister of Labour and have laid before him the true facts. The minister in the course of his three-hour speech did not attempt to deny those statements of fact, but he offered absolutely no suggestions for relief. As for the right hon. Prime Minister he boldly proclaimed that the government intended -to do nothing.
The resolution before the house is very plain; it is merely that immediate action be taken to deal with the question of unemployment. The Prime Minister has told us to-day that there is practically no unemployment in this country. Have my hon. friends of the labour movement misrepresented this situation? Are they uninformed as to the true situation? Is the Minister of Labour uninformed? He did not deny the actual fact,

but he could not give us any figures. Is the right hon. the Prime Minister correct in his attitude? What does he see in this plain, simple, direct amendment which evidently causes him so much alarm? As soon as I first read the amendment I thought that it was one which would be accepted unanimously by this house. In my own innocent way I thought that the Prime Minister would so manage matters as to be able to announce to the house that he would accept this amendment, not as a motion of want of confidence but as something which carried with it the unanimous approval of parliament. He did not take that course, but he suggests that in some way or other my hon. friends who represent labour in general are to be inveigled into adopting an attitude which they do not desire to adopt, they are to associate themselves with the Conservative opposition, which association will lead inevitably to disaster. That is something -the Prime Minister has conjured up in his own mind. He asks that the amendment be withdrawn, which amendment would have been unanimously approved by this house were it not for the speech of the Prime Minister. I hope sincerely that the words of my right hon. friend had no influence upon the hon. member for North Winnipeg. The hon. member has moved a resolution which will be strongly supported in parliament, a step in the right direction, taken at the proper time. All he asks is that action be taken to remedy a grievance, and one of national extent. Should we not seek some remedy now, or should we be bluffed out of it by the high sounding phrases of the Prime Minister, who says in effect that he will not believe in a condition of unemployment unless the premiers of the various provinces bring the matter to his attention? Does he not feel that the members of parliament represent all the provinces of confederation? For all federal purposes we are -the representatives of the provinces, and we bring to the attention of parliament the fact that in the various provinces there is an extreme, an emergent condition, and that it is -the duty of parliament to take action under this emergency.
I have watched the career of the Prime Minister since he came into parliament. I am sorry he is not present to-night. I remember well when he entered parliament in 1908; and I refer to this matter because from his speech to-day and one on another occasion, one would imagine that he had been the great champion of the rights of labour since he entered the Canadian House of Commons. I heard him proclaim to-day what he had done in regard to technical education. What

Unemployment-Mr. Guthrie
are the facts? I know they are within Your Honour's knowledge. At the request of various organized labour bodies throughout Canada, in the year 1909 I had the honour of introducing into the House of Commons, while my right hon. friend was Minister of Labour in this parliament, a resolution asking for the appointment of a committee to investigate the question of technical education in order that the Dominion parliament might take some action in the matter. I was supported by two or three on the Liberal side of the house, where I then sat. What was the attitude of the then Minister of Labour, the present Prime Minister of this country? He rose in his place and after a long speech, he killed my motion; he moved the adjournment of the debate to put my motion to the foot of the list. I would not stand for his motion. We divided the house, and on that occasion for the first time I had the honour of voting with the Conservative party. But my right hon. friend called upon his followers who were in the majority to vote down the motion on technical education, and it was voted down. Much time did not elapse after the end of that session before the attitude of my right hon. friend entirely changed. He got busy. The labour unions communicated with him, and very soon thereafter by order in council he appointed the commission which he would not let parliament vote to appoint. Before that commission made a report to the House of Commons my right hon. friend was out of the house. He was out of the house from 1911 to 1919 and he had no more to do with the question of technical education. All he did was to kill the first motion. The Conservative party was in power when the grant was made by parliament to the various provinces in respect of technical education. He was not present either to support or to oppose the grant, but later on when he was in power as Prime Minister, he put an end to that grant and the provinces now do not enjoy a dollar from the Dominion treasury for technical education.
My right hon. friend said this afternoon that if a time ever comes when there is cooperation in this country between the federal authority and the provincial authorities in regard to labour, it will be a happy day for Canada. Does any hon. member think my right hon. friend this afternoon advanced the cause of cooperation by the statements which he made on two occasions when in this house he proclaimed a new policy, a new doctrine; when he announced on two occasions during the course of his speech that under certain circumstances he would be prepared to grant
out of the Dominion treasury money to two provinces which at present had Progressive governments and to two provinces which at present had Liberal governments, but he would never consent to a dollar being paid out of the treasury of Canada to any province that had a Conservative government? Was there ever a more glaring piece of impropriety on the part of a prime minister? What does that language amount to? It is a threat or a bluff against five of the great provinces of Canada, and an inducement or a bribe to vote Liberal, and that from the lips of the Prime Minister! Surely that is "a vicious principle" to proclaim in public. It is an esqmsuire of the narrow, partisan mind of the Prime Minister himself. Language of that kind might be worthy of a Tammany leader in the lower wards of New York, where they say: You will vote the whole ticket or you will get no money; but it is unworthy falling from the lips of the Prime Minister of this country. I for one sincerely hope that for the good name of parliament, for the dignity of the house, the Prime Minister, before this debate is concluded, will rise in his place and withdraw' the improper remarks he made this afternoon.
What think you, Mr. Speaker, of the great province of Ontario, being threatened or bluffed in that manner-the richest province we have, the largest contributor in taxation to the treasury of this country, a province which recently went through a provincial election where the people, almost to the extent of eighty per cent of those who voted, cast their ballots in support of a Tory administration and returned it to power; an administration that is in office to-day by the largest majority of popular vote and sitting members that has ever existed in the Ontario legislature? What think you of a threat or a bluff to that legislature or to the voters who elected it? We provide in our election act against threats and inducements to the individual. What say we when the Prime Minister of Canada threatens a whole province that if they do not agree with him and elect a Grit legislature no money will come out of the Dominion treasury for that province?
There is another remark made this afternoon by the Prime Minister, for what purpose I know not, but a remark that I want to draw to the attention of the hon. gentleman who moved the motion. The Prime Minister argues that he has had no complaints from lawyers, doctors, professional men or financiers in regard to unemployment. Does he realize the meaning of the resolution which we are

Unemployment-Mr. Guthrie
at present discussing? It is a motion for the relief of the wage earner, not of anybody else. It is for the relief of the wage earners who are thrown out of employment. It is their cry which we hear throughout the length and breadth of the land, and it is to remedy their condition that this motion has been launched by the hon. member for North Winnipeg. I will grant that there may be room for a great difference of opinion as to what has brought about the present disastrous situation in this country. I know hon. members opposite take the view that they cannot attribute any part of this disastrous situation to the record of the present government. On the other hand I am just as firmly convinced in my own mind that the proximate cause, the chief contributing cause, of the situation which we have in Canada to-day has been the mistaken fiscal policy of this government during the years it has been in power. But let us differ upon that. We are not engaged now upon an inquiry into the causes; we are concerned with the facts. We have a situation here; or, in the language of former President Cleveland of the United States, we are confronted by a condition, not a theory. We have the unemployment, and the motion before the house asks for immediate action by way of relief.
I cannot accept the position either of the Prime Minister or of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) in regard to the responsibility which rests upon this parliament under these circumstances. I believe that, in the first instance, the liability or responsibility is upon the municipality. In the second instance, it is upon the provincial authorities. But that does not exclude liability or responsibility upon the part of this parliament. In my judgment we are legally and morally just as responsible as are the municipalities and the provinces. Let me point out just what I mean by that statement.
My hon. friend has pointed out that under the British North America Act, all charities and all eleemosynary institutions are under the control of the province. I do not think that the labouring people of this country who are out of employment are asking for charity. They are asking for rights, not for charitable contributions. I would also point out that under section 91 of the British North America Act all matters pertaining to the country at large are expressly placed under the jurisdiction of this parliament, and for those matters we are responsible. Included in them is, first, the whole question of trade and commerce. Any mismanagement of trade and commerce matters in Canada, will reflect upon employment in this country. Parliament is the only instrument that can manage or mismanage

our trade and commerce, and if we make an error which causes unemployment we surely should in the first instance bear the responsibility. Let me illustrate that by something that happened just two years ago. The then Minister of Finance brought down a measure to remove the customs duty on worsted yarns taking off the duty of 12| per cent and putting woollen yarns on the free list. Immediately after that action was taken, about 50 men were thrown out of employment in a worsted mill in the city of Guelph, and 150 were thrown out of employment in the town of Hespeler, nine miles from my city. That was the direct consequence of the action of this parliament. Nothing else intervened. This parliament decreed that worsted yarns such as were made in these factories should be placed on the free list, and no more yarns were made in those factories. They were imported from Bradford, England, and men to the number I have mentioned were thrown out of employment. AATio was responsible for that unemployment in the first instance? I do not say that that unemployment in those two individual cases exists to-day. I am using them only as an illustration of what may happen through the action of this parliament. Who caused that unemployment? Why, this Dominion parliament when it changed the tariff schedules in regard to woollen yarns.
Note, also, that the largest employers of labour in Canada are under the direct jurisdiction of this parliament; I refer to the tw'O great transportation systems. No other legislature in this country except this parliament has jurisdiction in respect to the Canadian Pacific railway or the Canadian National railway, which are by long odds the greatest employers of labour in Canada. The legislation of this parliament and of this parliament alone can affect them. We by an act, if we so chose, could throw thousands upon thousands of men out of employment on the railways. Would any responsibility rest upon us in that regard? Would not the first responsibility rest upon us in that regard? I maintain that ours would be the initial responsibility.
So, Mr. Speaker, in everything pertaining to trade and commerce and in everything pertaining to our great transportation systems we in this parliament have absolute and exclusive jurisdiction, and any act of ours that throws men out of employment surely places upon our shoulders the responsibility for anything that may occur. I cannot see it in any other light. Our responsibility for unemployment is just as great as that of the provinces and just as great as that of the municipalities. If the condition exists which I believe, nay, which I

Unemployment-Mr. Guthrie
know, exists throughout the length and breadth of Canada to-day in regard to employment and unemployment, I submit that it is our duty to intervene, and had it not been for the speech this afternoon of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, our intervention and our assistance would have been a matter of unanimous action in this house. Now that is blocked by the action of a single individual who happens for the time being to be the head of the government.
Is it too late to make a plea to the government to reconsider the position which the Prime Minister took this afternoon? I am impressed with the seriousness of the situation. I hear on every side of thousands and thousands of men out of employment. I do not get my evidence from the provincial premiers. No one needs to wait for such news; it is a matter of common knowledge. What are the conditions? Five or six thousand men out in one city in British Columbia; four hundred families in Edmonton being taken care of by the city and two hundred single men by the provincial government; ten thousand out of employment, I am told, in the city of Winnipeg; twenty-five to thirty thousand out of employment in the city of Toronto; in Windsor, thousands of mechanics walking the streets. I was in Windsor three weeks ago, and a pitiable sight is to be seen there about noon on an ordinary week day. In Oshawa thousands of men are out of employment. In every city in western Ontario it is the same story, and still the Prime Minister of this country proclaims to-day that there is no emergency, that there is nothing unusual in the situation.
The Minister of Labour, charged with the administration of the particular department which should have all the information in regard to employment and unemployment appears before us absolutely ignorant of the situation and unable to tell us how many men are to-day out of employment in the Dominion of Canada. That is the spectacle under the government of my right hon. friend, who proclaims himself a great friend of Labour. I will say this for him:	During his whole
career since 1908 in this house, I do not believe that there is any man in this country, or for that matter, in any other country, who has thought so much and has talked so much and written so much upon labour questions, and done so little for labour, as my right hon. friend. But I am not yet going to abandon all hope, I believe there is still time for him to consider the real situation. We do not need to make a party question out of this. We are not trying to gain any party advantage, notwithstanding the insinuations of the Prime Minister. It is not our motion; we were not consulted about it. There is nothing behind the motion, so far as I know, but the one	straight	question:	Shall	we	grantthe	needed	relief or	shall	we	not?
The occasions upon which I have made appeals to this government have not been very many and so far they have been uniformly unsuccessful. I wonder if I could do better on this occasion. I do not believe there is much use making an appeal under these circumstances to my hon. friend the Minister of Labour. While outwardly he is the most genial and whole-souled man you could meet anywhere, under his skin I find he is as hard as flint. I am afraid there is no hope from him. In a three hour speech he offered nothing-no remedy, no solution, no contribution, no assistance. I am afraid my appeal to him will fall on deaf ears. I see a smile on the face of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott). Is it worth my while making an appeal to him? I am afraid not. I am afraid he does not understand the real situation-he does not know what it means to have a wife and children crying for bread; if he did, I believe there would be more hope from him than from many others. Then there are my hon. friends the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar). No; I do not hope for much from them. Their views are circumscribed, their horizon is very limited; they cannot see past the conditions of the western wheat farmer; they know nothing of industrial employment in the rest of Canada. I am afraid I can make no impression on them. And as to my friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot), I said the Minister of Labour was hard as flint; I can only refer to the Postmaster General as harder than granite. Twice last session I tried as earnestly as a man could try, I appealed as fervently as a man could appeal, for a little more pay for the rural mail carriers, for the letter carriers, and for the railway postal clerks, and my appeal fell on deaf ears; for when I had finished he merely gave orders for the crack of the party whip and the ring of the division bells, and down I was voted.


Peter John Veniot: The prayer of the wicked availeth nothing.


Hugh Guthrie: That is perhaps true. I wish my hon. friend from North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) was in the house. He is a genial, smiling fellow, and I have no doubt he is a man with a big heart; he does understand the unemployment situation, and he has taken,

Unemployment-Mr. Guthrie
apparently every opportunity ito be absent during the course of this debate. He knows the condition of labour, he knows the terrible hardship of men with families to support and no money to buy food and clothing. They say that, like myself, he has a strain of good Scotch blood in him. Perhaps he is a bit thrifty, but I cannot believe it. When I recall how he was able to splash around the money of this country in North Bruce last year and is doing it again this year, I say to myself: Surely he can find in the recesses of the treasury some place where he can dig up half a million, a million or a million and a half for the relief of the unemployed at the present moment. Well, I have still my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, to appeal to. After his speech today I have not very much hope of persuading him, but I can tell him this: If he will rise to the occasion now, if he will make a compromise in the matter, if he will go down into the treasury and produce some money to assist the unemployed now, he will have the intense gratitude of a tremendous number of people in the Dominion. Some hon. members may ask why I do not do it myself. We in this house are aware that no private member can introduce a resolution or a bill involving the expenditure of one dollar of public money. That is why I am making an appeal to the government. If I were able to do so under the rules of this house, to-morrow I would bring in a bill for the expenditure of half a million, a million, or a million and a half dollars to join with the municipalities and the provinces in bearing this burden and granting this relief; but, as I say, unfortunately no private member can do so.
Now I ask my right hon. friend again if he will not do so. The bill will pass unanimously. I ask him to do it before we adjourn this Easter. Before we go home let us remedy this situation. Then while he is enjoying his Easter holiday let him develop some permanent policy to meet the recurring unemployment which comes to us annually on account of the rigour of our winter season. That is the plan I suggest to him. Do something now; that is what the motion asks-immediate action. Develop then a permanent policy and bring it down, and we will help him. I cannot imagine there is any shortage of money. Last year the government announced a surplus of 870,000,000 in the treasury. Surely there are one, or two, or three million dollars that they can devote to this laudable purpose. I cannot believe that a government that will go down into the treasury of this country and spend half a million dollars a year on motor

cars cannot dig up half a million dollars for the unemployed. I cannot believe that a government that will go down into the treasury of this country and spend half a million dollars on a building for a rich representative in the city of Washington cannot get half a million dollars for the unemployed. I tell my right hon. friend that if he tries he can get this money, and we will cause him no difficulty. Let him get it and distribute it pro rata amongst all the provinces, disregarding that improper statement which he made in the house this afternoon. Let him do it now and he will earn the gratitude of a tremendous number of people in the country now politically opposed to him. We will not oppose him, we will help him. Will he do it? He will have the unanimous voice of the House of Commons behind him if he will. I pledge myself that if he will do it I will never mention the fact as an act of contrition on his part, or a concession or admission that his government has failed to do anything during the last seven or eight years.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to give to this subject of unemployment the attention that its serious character demands, and I will be a proud man if any suggestion that I may make will aid by ever so little in the solution of this question. For that reason, sir, I have neither the time nor the inclination, to imitate some of the partisan speeches that have been made in the course of this debate. Supposedly dealing with unemployment they were very much earmarked as being part of the usual preelection political ballyhoo-I think that is the word. As the debate progressed I recognized the time-worn platitudes, the glistening generalities, and the old familiar catchwords that we associate with the approach of a general election. Let me quote some of them: Canada the land of promise; Canada the land of broad, wide open spaces; our red-blooded citizens; the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, and so on; but often descending to the most petty personalities, both as regards parties and as regards individuals.
Now, what aid is it to the unemployed if we say that Bob on one side of the house, after hours of debate, demonstrates that Peter on the other side once upon a time made a political bet; or we will say that Jim on this side of the house, after much wrangling of Hansard and so on, proves that John on the other side three weeks ago at some place in the west, said something somewhat different from the language he used when opening a flower show in Prince Edward Island nine and

Unemployment-Mr. Neill
three quarter years before? That is the sort of stuff we have been listening to. Is this the best statesmanship we can give to the men who sent us here? If we cannot act as statesmen at least let us try to reach a little higher grade than schoolboys squabbling over a game of marbles.
Now, as regards the unemployment question, I want to state my position quite frankly. I am of the opinion that the Dominion government, being the dominant factor, so to speak, in the confederation of the provinces should call a conference of the provinces to deal with this subject. I think the conference should have a twofold purpose in mind. First, it should discuss the underlying causes of more or less permanent or recurring unemployment, and the possible remedies for those conditions. Secondly, in a subordinate degree, it should consider with the provinces unemployment insurance, and whether they could cooperate either to devise a scheme that would be workable under the British North America Act as it now exists, or, with the consent of all the provinces, make such a change in the British North America Act as would permit the inauguration of such a scheme. The idea of such a conference would meet with general support throughout the country. It would not commit the government to any lavish expenditure, beyond preliminary expenses, and much good would be likely to come from it. It would perhaps demonstrate to our industries methods of reducing seasonal unemployment, which is so much a cause of the trouble. It would educate us in the true conditions regarding the unemployment situation.
May I say a word at this point in regard to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon. I think he misapprehended the purpose and the meaning of the amendment introduced by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). The amendment is that in the opinion of this house the government should take immediate action to deal with the question of unemployment. That is the amendment, and no more than that. The Prime Minister appeared to go upon the premises that his government had been asked to make two very heavy expenditures, one to meet immediate relief and the other to inaugurate a system of unemployment insurance. Neither is an essential of the request made in the resolution. In the first instance, as to dealing with unemployment, it might take the form of a reduction of expenses. For instance, it might be asked or suggested that immigration should be curtailed, and a saving thereby effected, or it
might necessitate certain legislation or representations to encourage industry to cut down periods of seasonal unemployment. At this stage I might quote a clipping from to-night's issue of a labour paper in the United States:
Governor Roosevelt, of New York state, has appointed a committee of five to study and make plans for the stabilization of industry and the prevention of unemployment.
This has nothing to do with the present depression, but is looking forward to the preventing of a recurrence of unemployment in the future. That is what I understood the purpose of the amendment before us to be. As to unemployment insurance, the resolution does not ask, and the government might never be asked, to spend a nickel in connection with it. It may be found when this conference is called that the provinces will be agreeable to recognizing unemploymeift as their responsibility, and they might agree to pay the whole of the State's share of unemployment insurance. However, as no one province can successfully inaugurate a system of unemployment relief, and it would be impossible to have nine different and competing systems, it would be necessary for the Dominion government to inaugurate what might be called the machinery, and the different provinces would come in and agree to bear the expense. Possibly it has been suggested that the Dominion government might pay a portion, but it does not follow as a matter of course that because we ask the Dominion Government to consider legislation of that nature we are asking it to commit itself to any outlay in that regard.
As to unemployment, I am afraid as long as we have our present economic conditions, and the easy way in which we can speed up production, we will always have it with us; I think it will get worse. Even when times are thoroughly prosperous there is a great amount of unemployment, as I shall attempt to show in a moment. Then when the reaction comes the drop from the high standard of employment makes it even more severe. I am inclined to agree with a leading economist of the United States who says that unemployment will be the biggest problem in that country during the next decade, and he attributes the condition to standardization of industry and to improved technique. To bring it home to us in Canada, I shall quote the conditions in Vancouver. If I understood correctly the hon. member who just took his seat, he said that in one city of the province of British Columbia there are between five thousand and six thousand unemployed. No doubt when he quotes those figures he is exercising a political poetic licence, because, I have returns from Vancouver, the big-
Unemployment-Mr. Neill

gest city of British Columbia, to the effect that for the two weeks ending January 29, 1930, there were only 1,093 unemployed. It cost that city $25,400 for those two weeks to furnish work for unemployed labour. For total relief including people who were not able to work, the cost was $36,000. For the whole of last year the total cost for unemployment work and relief in the city of Vancouver was $232,000. This condition is coincident with a period of prosperity in that city. The industrial payroll has gone up $1,700,000 in the last year; more than one thousand men have been added to the industrial payroll in the city of Vancouver, and it is in a prosperous condition, the total payroll being $65,000,000 a year. Yet we have a constantly growing number of unemployed who require assistance.
I had occasion recently to took at these men; I went out and watched them at work. I did not announce myself or speak to the foreman, but I just watched them, and I wish to say that only a very small percentage of those men were apparently addicted to either drink or dope. They were not the down-and-out variety, but were honest working men, quite able, willing and anxious to work if they could. I watched the rate at which they worked and I found it was up to the average. I must say that they worked a good deal harder than I would have done for one dollar a day; the single man receives one dollar per day, and the married man two dollars.
Early in the month of January the city of Vancouver called an unemployment conference. That city invited a representative from the Dominion government, which did not send one and should have done so; it invited representatives from the province, who acted in a similar manner to the Dominion; it invited the British Columbia provincial members and all the Dominion members from the province of British Columbia. As a result one of the provincial members attended, and none of the federal members, except myself. I had three days' travel to get there and back, whereas many members who lived in the city of Vancouver or nearby did not attend; probably they did not have the time or interest to go and inquire into the industrial and unemployment conditions in their own locality. I venture to say they will find an abundance of time, however, during the next election campaign to come swarming into my constituency as they have done in the past in a method comparable only to the nine plagues in the time of the Pharaohs, seeking, of course, to coerce and bully the electorate, and to compel them to vote in such a way as to suit their peculiar points of view. I am 
glad to say my electors are free born, independent men and women, and not coerced so easily.
I may say, indeed, that the invasion has already begun. Last week a cabinet minister and a private member of the legislature took part in a nominating convention in my district, and the Hon. R. L. (Pat) Maitland was quoted as saying this:
Speaking of Independent candidates, Mr. Maitland said that he had never met Mr. Neill. He must be a good man or he would not occupy his present position.
I have often had occasion to applaud remarks made by our Conservative friends, but I do not think I have ever done it with more sincerity than when I applaud that remark. I hope he will come again and bring his friends with him. If they follow the line this man took it will do me good, and if they take a different line it will do them harm.
At this conference on unemployment I was asked to say a few words, and I pointed out at that time what I thought were the underlying causes and possible remedies. I am glad to say since I have come to this house I learn from the remarks made by labour and other members that my views coincide a good deal with theirs. The suggested causes of unemployment which I gave were four: First, over-immigration; second, seasonal production and unregulated production; third, the mechanization of industry, which is even extending to farming now, and fourth, business depression. Possibly that last is more caused by unemployment, but there are cases in which financial panics, stock market crashes and the like, would affect employment.
The remedies which I suggested, in a simple way, were: First, with regard to immigration, my suggestion was to stop assisted immigration. That has been generally accepted by the country and I understand the government has put it more or less into effect, but I will go further and suggest that we stop all immigration for the present time. We have a precedent for that in New Zealand, which is very much in touch with the old country. I saw recently, on February 1, that Sir Joseph Ward, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, stated that he has notified Great Britain that owing to the number of unemployed in New Zealand his government would not be able to accept any of Great Britain's surplus population. If that is good for New Zealand probably it would be good for us, for a short time at least.
Then I would suggest that the Dominion government, the provincial governments and the municipalities take active steps so to

Unemployment-Mr. Neill
arrange their programs of expenditure-because they spend enormous sums of money in the aggregate-as to make the work begin earlier in the spring and continue until later in the fall. Certainly that would help a great deal in keeping down the peak of employment, and would result in a smaller number being unemployed in the winter time. Then again I think industry should be encouraged by the government, and perhaps by the provinces as well, to aid in doing away with rush periods. I am not familiar with the boot and shoe business, but I am told that there is a period, three or four months in length and occurring twice a year, in which the peak production is reached, after which there is a slack time. Probably that could be overcome. There is an industry in the United States dealing with some foreign product which enters that country only about three months in the year. That formerly meant an enormous difference between the high and low levels of employment, something like 600 per cent. Now they are putting this product into cold storage for a while, and that has brought that difference down to normal. It is good business for them to make that change, because now they have permanent, steady workmen in their service. Things like that would cost nothing and would help industry, and the different branches of industry might be encouraged along that line by means of investigations by government officials or possibly by a commission appointed for that purpose. I can illustrate that point by referring again to the commission appointed by Governor Roosevelt of the state of New York, which has for its purpose the readjustment of industry to reduce seasonal unemployment.
Then we come to the question of the mechanization of industry. Of course it is obvious what that means. Production by machinery has gone ahead so fast that to-day one man can produce what it used to take ten, twenty, or thirty men to produce. Not only is that the case, but we have also constant new inventions. Hardly a month, and certainly not a year, goes by without comparatively large bodies of men not only being thrown out of work temporarily but finding their occupation entirely wiped out owing to the invention of some improved machinery. These are things we cannot avoid and could not stop. We would not stop them if we could; that would be going back to medieval times, like doing away with trains and so on, but we should take cognizance of it and take steps to remedy any grievance or any hardship which might result from this rapid increase in mechanization.
Now we come to the last remedy which I suggest both for these and for other conditions which I have outlined. I suppose it will be regarded as revolutionary, but my suggestion is that we should have a shorter working day. I was much surprised and pleased to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) state during the course of his remarks that there had been a petition signed by the mayor and council, on behalf of the citizens of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba, asking that the Dominion government take steps to shorten the working day. If a city council as large as that of Winnipeg, composed for the most part, not of working men but of business men, can take that line, surely it is worth at least considering, and it shows that such a movement possibly might be acceptable generally. I see that the Labour Statesman, of Vancouver, endorses the same idea and says:
While the short-sighted employers of Canada desire an ever abundant supply of subsidized immigrants, so that they can continue to operate their industries with low-paid labour, from everywhere there is the cry for more markets to consume the products of the modern producing machine. What better way is there than to make this possible by a well-paid wageearning class?
Certainly I can endorse that suggestion.
Now we come to the question of unemployment insurance, and I put that last because I realize that it is only a palliative, that it is only treating a symptom of the disease. It is like a doctor treating a man for a headache when he has a fever. It is all right to treat the symptom but at the same time you must get at the underlying trouble. Here I differ for the first time, I think, with my hon. friend for North Winnipeg. He says the Dominion can and should and must deal with the question, that it is our responsibility as members of this federal parliament. Well, the Scriptures say that if you have faith you may move mountains, but it does not say anything about faith moving the British North America Act. If I have enough 60 per cent dynamite I can remove the mountain without, faith, but I can do nothing with the British North America Act. I may say that to-day is some other day in the month or year than the calendar shows it to be, but no amount of eloquence and no amount of belief on my part can change the cold fact that it is not that day. It is just the same with the British North America Act; no matter how much we may desire that the government should not be bound by that act, the fact remains that the government is bound, and we cannot evade that fact.
Unemployment-Mr. Neill

Let me quote an instance which comes from British Columbia. Ever since the time of confederation the government has proceeded on the theory that the fisheries were entirely under the jurisdiction of the Dominion. A case came up in police court; it was appealed and went on from court to court until finally it went to the privy council, where it was decided that a considerable proportion of the jurisdiction, that on land, belongs to the provinces. What is the condition? That does not suit the Dominion; it does not suit the provinces either and certainly it does not suit the industry, because it is a dual control which is undesirable, but what are we to do about it? We say it is wrong, that the Dominion should have complete control. I will agree with that. Some people think the provinces should have the entire responsibility, but they do not have it. That is the British North America Act, and that is an illustration that no matter how much we may desire to get away from that act, we cannot do so. Change it if you like; get together with the provinces and agree to amend it, but we cannot ignore it.
The hon. member spoke of old age pensions as an example of what this government could do. That is an entirely different thing. In connection with old age pensions we gave the provinces so much money and we did not propose to force the working man to pay a portion of his wages as would be the case if we had unemployment insurance. I need not go into that; it is obvious that one province could not successfully inaugurate an unemployment insurance scheme. I grant that the Dominion could and perhaps should assist; I do not know about that; they can assist if all the provinces are agreeable, but if all the provinces are agreeable you can do anything; you can change the British North America Act if you like.
Now I want to refer to the report with respect to unemployment insurance brought to the house last year by the committee on industrial and international relations. The committee recommended simply that the federal government be requested to bring the subject matter of the report before the next Dominion-provincial conference. I find that the Ottawa Journal of the next day has this to say, after commenting on the report:
It is to be hoped that parliament and the government find a resting place for these recommendations in the most convenient waste basket.
. ... It is absolute nonsense. This country has no more need of unemployment insurance than it has need of polygamy.
I wonder what the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) thinks about that 
statement in his party organ. That was not published thirty or forty years ago; that was last year. It reminds me of an item which appeared in a newspaper many years ago with regard to a man who was trying to sell shares in a telephone company. The newspaper said he should be put in gaol, because everybody knew it was nonsense and even if it could be used there was no commercial value in itl Times change, however, and there has been a considerable feeling growing up throughout the country with regard to this question even in the last year. We find three large cities in Canada suggesting this same thing, and then we have the resolution referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) passed by this convention on unemployment held recently in Winnipeg. This convention was not composed of unemployed men, but rather of representatives of cities, men in business who were responsible for the financing and running of those cities. This convention passed a resolution which concluded as follows:
Therefore be it resolved that this conference endorses the principle of unemployment insurance, and urges the calling of an interprovincial and federal conference at the earliest possible date for the consideration of the adoption of a Dominion-wide scheme.
The mover of that resolution was an aider-man from Fort William, not a working man in the sense of being unemployed, and the seconder was a representative of the Saskatchewan government. As I have pointed out already, that was not a council of idle men, it was a conference of business men seeking a solution for this problem.
I would like to emphasize that when we speak of unemployment insurance we do not mean the dole. The dole has been mixed up with unemployment insurance, much to the disadvantage of this insurance scheme. This insurance is similar to that carried on by fraternal societies, where the insured must have paid for thirteen weeks before he can collect anything and where he can draw only so much per year. The government of the day in Great Britain, perhaps owing to some pressure of politics, or I believe some strike, put down the bars and extended the benefits. The result was not an insurance, it was a payment to all and sundry who asked for it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it not a fact that in Great Britain the employees have to subscribe to the fund when they are in employment?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, but under the extended system they were released from having to make any payments before getting relief. Beginning, I think, on May 1, they are going

Unemployment-Mr. Macdougall
back to the old system. It will then pay its way, as it did before they introduced the extended system known as the dole. The trades and labour council has gone on record as being in favour of this scheme. I will not detain the house by reading their resolution, but they are in favour of the workmen paying at least one-third of the cost, and the scheme being put on an actuarial basis.
I believe that public sentiment is veering towards this proposed scheme. When a city the size of Vancouver is forced to pay more than a quarter of a million dollars annually for relief, is it any wonder that they are interested in a reasonable system of unemployment insurance. The question of cost is always a vital one. The suggestion is that a third is to be paid b3^ the men, a third by the employers, and a third by the state, although it is not stated whether that is dominion or provincial, or whether that third will be split half and half. But in the consideration of this phase of cost we should not overlook the concealed cost.
Unfortunately, unemployment is progressive. Every man who is out of employment is forced to butt into the other man's job, and that throws him out. Then presently he and his family have lost their purchasing power, and that in turn throws more men out of employment. A considerable loss is brought about by deterioration. Six weeks' idleness makes a man a potential hobo; six months' idleness makes him a potential criminal. In the early nineties I had an experience in the city of Vancouver somewhat along that line. I was very hard up, and could not get work, although I had not reached the point of actual destitution, but I could not help but notice the rapid mental degeneration of other men in like circumstances. The idle rich can find something with which to employ themselves, but the idle poor has nothing to do. A man in such circumstances deteriorates mentally and physically at a most remarkable and rapid gait. Three years ago I was in the House of Commons in London and I heard a man who is now a member of the cabinet make the statement that ithe gap between unemployed and unemployable was very narrow, and that the gap between unemployable and criminal was narrower still. A man will steal before he will see his children starve, at least I know I would. Think what is involved in that. We are forced to pay the cosits of an army of police, courts, magistrates, judges, jails and such things. Statisticians tell us that after a man has been in jail three times he rarely comes back; he is a criminal for the rest of his life, and has to be kept by the people. If he has
been in jail twice, he has some hope, and that hope is increased where he has had but one jail sentence. A certain percentage of the men sent to jail for petty stealing into which they are forced by these conditions will never get back to normal life. Then there is the price of ill health to be paid. Statisticians tell us that preventable ill health costs more than all the wars in the world. Wars occur only occasionally, but this thing is going on all the time. There is a lack of proper sanitation, a lack of proper food and clothing; all these things tell upon the population. There are the mental, moral and physical weaklings caused by such conditions, who in turn breed further generations of weaklings.
Unemployment insurance is insurance not only against unemployment but against something else-it is insurance against sovietism. I do not say that the working man of Canada would go to that extreme, he has too much sense, but we must be prepared to meet the political upheaval which might follow a continuance of such conditions. How can we assume that a starving man or woman will reason with the precision of a university professor? Can we blame them for acts committed when they are in a condition of helplessness and hopelessness. I do not know of two more damnable conditions in which the human mind can ;be than those of absolute hopelessness and absolute helplessness. Can we wonder that men in such a state of mind will hit out against the system under which they are suffering and under which they do not receive a fair deal?
Deducting these costs from any monetary costs of establishing a system of unemployment insurance leaves a very small debit, if any, to be considered. The question is not that we cannot afford to do it, but that we cannot afford not to do it. It is our duty as would-be statesmen working for the people to do everything possible to not only check this continual unemployment but to relieve any occasional unemployment which may still occur.


Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Neill) will not adjudge me guilty of any lack of courtesy if I do not attempt to follow his remarks. I do not do so for the reason that the hon. member, like myself, is a private member, and the responsibility for this matter rests upon the government. I would refer to the speech of the man to whom the labouring people of Canada have looked during this debate, namely the man in control of the Labour department, the Minister of Labour (Mr. 1254	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Macdougall
Heenan). Before I make any comments upon his remarks, may I offer him perhaps what is a unique form of congratulation? I have to congratulate him for delivering in this House of Commons what in my judgment was certainly one of the longest, one of the most illogical, one of the most inelegantly expressed, and one of the most hopelessly mixed speeches ever inflicted upon any parliament of Canada. Out of this Gratiano performance of the Minister of Labour, I shall attempt to extract some little common sense. I use that character as an example, because when Shakespeare delineated the character of Gratiano in the Merchant of Venice there must have passed through the prophetic mind of the great poet a performance such as we had yesterday from the Minister of Labour. Certainly the minister spoke an infinite deal of nothing; his reasons were as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them, they are not worth the search.
Out of this welter of illogical conclusions and grammatical errors I have tried to extract a little common sense. I have found this: the hon gentleman told us in his speech that he had conceived a permanent plan to solve unemployment in Canada; he had conceived that within the fathomless-I had almost said abyss, but I will say recesses-of his mighty mind. It has not been given to the people of Canada yet. I could very well conjure up the sleepless nights and laborious hours that the hon. gentleman consumed in evolving the plan within his mind. I could very well understand the amount of mental energy that was consumed in the process that he described. But after telling us that he had devoted all this time to forming some plan to deal with unemployment in this country, he wasted two hours of the time of the house in reading extracts trying to prove that there was no unemployment to which the great plan that he had endeavoured to evolve could be applied. I mention this just to indicate one of the choice illogical titbits from the clumsy and spavined intellectual performance of my hon. friend.
Ah, but there is, in the speech of my hon. friend, another point, if I may so designate it to which I should like to refer. Not, mark you, saying what he said in London; not saying what he will say in the back concessions when he is let loose from parliament, he said that the time was not yet ripe for unemployment insurance. Why? Because, he says, the people of this country have to be educated; it is advanced social legislation and the working people have to be educated before we can

introduce unemployment insurance. Whence must their education come? We would naturally suppose it would come from the man who presides over the destinies of the Labour department for the whole of Canada. If that be the fountain head, the source whence education on this problem of unemployment insurance must come, all I have to say to the unemployed, to the organized labouring people of Canada is this:	The Minister of Labour
is the source whence education on unemployment insurance must come: read his speech and then weep for yourselves, for your children and for unemployment insurance.
But there might be some point in having public opinion in Canada crystallized along the line of unemployment insurance. If there be any need for education along this line, the party that now holds power has had ample opportunity in which to provide it. I read over the platform on which the Prime Minister attained his position as leader of the Liberal party, on which he succeeded in getting the votes of the electorate, and I find that in that platform was a commission for unemployment insurance. That was in 1919, eleven years ago. What did the Prime Minister have to say about it this afternoon? Did he come out and say, as I suppose he would say when he accepted nomination as leader of the party, that he would do something? In all the ramblings of the Prime Minister this afternoon you cannot find a single definite, positive statement, that he is going to do anything in regard to the question of unemployment insurance. Yet he was able, supporting unemployment insurance as one of the planks in his platform, to get the votes of the people of this country. Fortunate it is for the people, particularly for the unemployed, that he will never get those votes again! But if there be any education required in regard to the matter of unemployment insurance- and I want to submit this to the Minister of Labour that labour in Canada will not take kindly to that suggestion; for labour in Canada is just as advanced in the matter of social problems as labour in any other country in the world. They do not need any education, particularly from the Minister of Labour. He is not capable of giving any education to anybody. But eleven years have passed since the Prime Minister adopted this plank in the Liberal party and nothing has been done.
There is in the speech of the Minister of Labour another statement to which I might make a passing reference. He said that the present government should be given great credit for the fact that it is going to establish an eight-hour day on public works under

Unemployment-Mr. Macdougall
government control. May I point this out? For two years the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), myself and others in the opposition have been demanding that this be done. Last year when the minister's estimates were before the house, we succeeded in getting a promise from him that he would at this session introduce a bill making provision for an eight-hour day on works controlled by the government of Canada, and also making provision for the payment of a living wage. When there was no sign of that bill being introduced in the early stages of this session, at the very first occasion on which the Minister of Public Works introduced his estimates, I took the matter up again and for over an hour discussed it in the house. Two weeks afterwards, when nothing was being done, members of the opposition, including myself, held up the estimates of the Minister of Public Works for two hours and a half until we succeeded in getting a definite promise that that legislation would be introduced at the present session. It is now being introduced, and one of the Toronto papers, I think it was the Toronto Star, supporting the present government, comes out with the statement that this legislation will mean $600,000 a year to the people of Canada. They follow this with the statement: "Hats off to Peter Heenan."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I hear some members faintly applauding. I hope they will applaud after I have concluded my statement. I might point out that the hon. gentleman to whom hats ought to be taken off has been Minister of Labour for four years. I think he assumed office in 1926; he should never have assumed it at all. If that legislation which he was forced by the opposition to bring into the house means $600,000 a year to labour in this country, this means simply that the hon. gentleman by his passivity and indifference to the cause of labour for four years has brought about a loss to labour amounting to $2,400,000, on account of his not having introduced that legislation four years ago. Let the Toronto Daily Star take account of that statement, and then let it give it out to the labour people of Canada and ask them to take their hats off to the Minister of Labour. So much for the rambling, rattling, illogical speech of the Minister of Labour.
In respect to the amendment which is before the house, there is no other question that could be considered by the parliament of Canada which is of greater importance
than that of unemployment. Not only is this question serious to those men-and there are to-day thousands of them in Canada- who stand idle, who are without work, whose wives and children as a consequence are without bread, but it is a matter of very great consequence and concern to the whole of society. Society has been compared by sociologists to the human body. Just as the human body is made of different members, so too is society. Individuals are the members of society. Where, in the case of the human body, its members are functioning properly, you have a healthy physical organism. Where one or two members may not be functioning properly, you have a diseased organism. So too, in the case of society. Where you have hundreds of thousands unemployed-and there are over a hundred thousand unemployed in Canada today, although the Minister of Labour evidently does not know anything about it- where you have that vast number without work and their dependents starving, you have a situation that affects not only the individuals immediately concerned but the whole of society.
Now I come to the argument of the right hon. the Prime Minister. It is this, that unemployment should be a question first for the individual; secondly, for the family; then for the municipality; then for the province; and then, I suppose, as a natural consequence, because he could not escape responsibility any further, it becomes a matter for the Dominion government. Speaking on the address in this house the Prime Minister said that unemployment was first a question for the individual, and then for the family. 1 do not think that I ever listened to a more absurd statement falling from the lips of any public man. What did he mean when he said' that? There is only one conclusion, and that is that he meant that unemployment was a question to be solved by the individual who is unemployed. In other words, he propounds to the unemployed people of Canada this choice morsel of sophistry, that unemployment should be the problem of the unemployed and should be paid for by them. If there was any sense at all in his remarks, that is the only sense that I could extract from them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where does my hon. friend find my statement in that regard?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: At page 38 of
Hansard, in the Prime Minister's speech on the address. My right hon. friend does not get me on that kind of thing; I come armed with the reference. Just look it up. I wish to
1256	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Macdougall
say to the right hon. gentleman that I entirely disagree with him when he says that the first body that is responsible in this matter is the municipality, and then the province.
Let us see why it was that men formed themselves into societies. We have, first, the society which we call the home, where members are drawn together by propinquity and ties of blood. Later they join together in municipalities, and then in provinces, and then, in the case of this country, the provinces joined together in one dominion. Why did they do that? They did it for the purpose of securing for the individual citizen greater security and protection. There is no question about that; it is the only reason for the formation of the Canadian confederation. That is the only reason why the provinces joined together in order to form this great dominion. They did it because they wanted to be sure that in times of stress and need, when the individual was in difficult straits, they would have a powerful social organization behind them to help them out.
But there is another consideration. I wish to point out to this house that when this dominion was formed, the various provincial governments gave up to this central power, this power which is supposed above all others to protect them, the majority of their sources of taxation. The provinces retain only the sources of direct taxation, and even those sources, I submit, have been invaded by the present government and by previous federal governments. I mention the income tax as an illustration. We must in discussing these problems extract some canon of social justice. What is the canon that must be extracted here? The canon in the application of matters of this kind is that the strongest back shall bear the heaviest burden. Whose back is the strongest as between the federal provincial and municipal bodies? In 1867, when this dominion was formed, Ontario-I might take any other province-was receiving a revenue from duties amounting to only $2,000,000. In 1929, the government over which the right hon. Prime Minister presides took from the people of the province of Ontario in duties, $103,000,000. And so with the other provinces. The federal government has invaded the provincial sources of revenue. The federal government is capable of dealing with situations such as unemployment throughout the country, and from the very organization of society it is absolutely logical and absolutely just that the federal government should deal with a situation such as unemployment.
We have had a lot of loose talk in this house about the British North America Act

and about the powers of the provincial and federal governments. I want to ask this question of the Prime Minister. Perhaps he may not answer me at all; I do not suppose he will. Is there anything in the British North America Act to prevent this government giving assistance to the provinces to help relieve unemployment ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Nothing that
I know of.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Then why don't you do it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Because we
have other uses for our money, other obligations.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: There is, then,
nothing in the British North America Act to prevent this government from giving assistance to relieve unemployment in this country. There is nothing in the British North America Act to prevent the provinces from receiving that assistance. We are faced with the problem of unemployment. It is here. We have people starving in this country. What are we going to give them? Are we going to give them what the Prime Minister tried to give them this afternoon? I do not wish to detract at all from the literary and economic efforts of my right hon. friend. I may say that before I ever came to this parliament I had read thrice the book from which he quoted this afternoon. To my mind it was excellent. It did credit to the right hon. gentleman who occupies the exalted position of Prime Minister. In some respects it has distinct literary merits. But though it is a good book to read, extracts from it are very poor feeding for the unemployed people of Canada. In the Scriptures we read of people who were crying for bread and were offered a stone. Well, the right hon. Prime Minister is not quite that bad. But what do the unemployed get from the Prime Minister when they send a delegation here composed of representatives from all over the country? And, Mr. Speaker, that to my mind is the most humiliating spectacle the people of Canada have ever had to witness-men in this great, young, rich country to have to come here to beg for bread! What did they get from the right hon. Prime Minister? They got ringing, jingling, platitudinous sentences from Industry and Humanity, and they are supposed to go back satisfied with that treatment. He had to admit to-night that there is nothing in the constitution to prevent him

Unemployment-Mr. Macdougall
giving aid to the people whose wives and little children are starving-absolutely nothing: yes, he admitted it publicly.
Now, I say to the right hon. Prime Minister in days that have gone he had occasion to go up and down this country on a political mission, and I remember some of the phrases -he is a coiner of striking phrases-I remember some of the phrases he used in connection with a certain matter, and particularly one that he repeated in almost every address he delivered in every province. He said: "The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life." Today when the unemployed come to him for relief, he reads extract after extract, couched in beautifully-worded platitudinous language, from Industry and Humanity and in effect says to them: Take that; it should be sufficient for you. I repeat to him to-night: The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life. There is no man in this country to-day, sir, that can truthfully say there is any constitutional reason why assistance should not be given to the 14,000 unemployed people in the city of Winnipeg, why it should not be given to the men who have to depend on soup kitchens in Toronto and Montreal, -


Mr. CANNON:: There are no soup kitchens in Montreal.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: There are hundreds.


Lucien Cannon: No, no.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I will permit a question.


Lucien Cannon: There is no such thing in Quebec.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: At the present time
in the city of Montreal there are 1,800 male adults being fed at soup kitchens.


Lucien Cannon: No; you do not know what you are talking about.


Mr. LACOMBE:: Were you in Montreal
last week?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I did not have to
be in Montreal last week to know that.


Lucien Cannon: You had better go and
see.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was there
yesterday. There are 1,800 people a day fed at soup kitchens.


Lucien Cannon: No.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It is lamentable,
Mr. Speaker, that people do not know the economic conditions even in their own province.


Liguori Lacombe: Do you know Sir Hugh
Allan?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Are you asking a
question or making a speech?


Liguori Lacombe: Do you know Sir Hugh
Allan?


An hon. MEMBER:: He is a dead one.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I want to get this
clearly before the house-


Liguori Lacombe: We want some figures
concerning-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, we want
some figures concerning Montreal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, we want
some figures concerning Montreal.
Some hon. MEMBERS : Order.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: There are two
points I want to get before the house. The first is, there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the right hon. Prime Minister and his government from giving assistance to men who are unemployed in this country. No amount of sophistry, no amount of reading of platitudinous extracts from Industry and Humanity can disguise the fact. This afternoon the Prime Minister made a statement, and although I have a great admiration for him, honestly I think it was unworthy the position he occupies at the moment. He stated that he would not contribute to assist unemployment in the provinces where the governments are not Liberal. But, Mr. Speaker, this question is one that transcends party politics. My right hon. friend after reading those very beautiful extracts from Industry and Humanity, with all the idealism which he had conjured up during his residence in the United States, fell down to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon.
friend tell me when I ever resided in the United States?


An hon. MEMBER:: During the war.

125S	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Macdougall


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I tell my hon. friend he is entirely wrong. I have never had a residence anywhere except in Canada at any time.


An hon. MEMBER:: You lived there. They could not conscript you in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shut up.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I do not know
what my right hon. friend means by the interruption. He may not have had a home in the United States, but at least he was there on a certain occasion. In this book which is so beautifully phrased, Industry and Humanity, and in which he expresses such high ideals, he tells us what he was prepared to do for labour in this country, and having quoted extract after extract, five minutes afterwards he says in effect-and I think it was the most disgraceful statement I ever listened to in this house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: All right, I will
change the adjective and say the most humiliating spectacle I ever saw, and the most humiliating pronouncement that I ever heard in this house-he said in effect: that although women and children were starving in this country he would not contribute out of the abundant revenues of this Dominion five cents to keep them alive, if the government of the province in which they were starving happened to be politically different from the right hon. gentleman. I think he had better write an appendix to Industry and Humanity after making that statement.
Well now. with all this cant, with all this drivel about constitutional objections, I want to say to my right hon. friend to-night, first of all, there is nothing in the constitution that will prevent him from helping the unemployed, to save them from starving; and certainly there is nothing in the constitution to prevent the provinces from receiving grants from this government for that purpose. But I want to add, he has a responsibility in this connection, for the simple reason that the unemployment existing in the Dominion today, and it is very general, exists because of the failure of the government over which he presides. Nationally considered, there are four factors in the matter of national productivity; they are, first, land-I use the term in its economic sense to include not only the surface of the earth, but all the resources with which we have been endowed by ProvifM Mackenzie King,]
dence: second, labour; third, capital, in the sense of capital goods; fourth, the managerial ability which must come from the government that controls the destiny of the state.
Now, let us see if in respect to any or all of these factors they have fallen down. Can anyone say we have unemployment because our natural resources are not sufficient to provide a good living for our sparse population?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Hon. gentlemen
say "no". I am glad to hear that. Undoubtedly to-day we have illimitable opportunities for the production of wealth, we have potential wealth of .farm, forest, sea and mine. We should be able to provide a good living in this country not only for ten million people but for one hundred million people, and we could do so if we had a proper government. Consequently I say to this house to-night that the first factor to be considered in the matter of national competition has not fallen down. We cannot blame Providence for stinting in the matter of bestowing natural resources upon this great young country.
Let us take the second factor, that of labour. Does any man in this house, whether he be Grit, Tory or Progressive, mean to tell me that the men who stand idle to-day, the men to whom the Prime Minister directed his platitudes in his sentences from Industry and Humanity this afternoon, do so because it is a pleasure to them to be idle? Do they desire to see their wives and little children starving? On behalf of the labourers of this country I want to say that all they want is the opportunity to work at fair wages. Consequently, the second factor in national productive enterprise has not fallen down.
Thirdly, we come to the factor of capital. With our great natural resources there should be no difficulty whatever, were it not for the unwise fiscal policy of this government, to get all the capital we want in order to develop the abundant natural resources with which we have been endowed by a bountiful Providence. There is no reason why we should not have all the capital we want.
If the first three factors have not fallen down, what has fallen down? I will tell you. The thing that has fallen down is the directive force which those factors must and should receive from the right hon. Prime Minister and those hon. members who are associated with him. There can be no doubt about that. How can we expect to have anything but unemployment in this country when we have promulgated and supported by this govern-

Unemployment-Mr. Irvine
ment policy which is not Canadian but one under which raw materials of Canada are shipped, formed and fashioned in American mills and factories, by American workmen? What can we expect in Canada, other than unemployment, when the only solicitude that this government is capable of providing is to fill the factories with American workmen? I am not speaking too strongly on this subject.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: No, I am not speaking too strongly; I am speaking very fairly, and if any evidence is needed to prove that statement it can be readily found in the trade returns between this country and the United States of America. During the last year we brought in from the United States over $900,000,000 worth of goods. We had an unfavourable trade balance with our great southern neighbour of $347,000,000. Seventy-five per cent of those goods could have been produced in Canada by Canadian workmen, and if they had been produced here we could have given employment to 500,000 Canadian people. We have in this country to-day about 100,000 unemployed. Not only is it necessary that we should have a wise fiscal policy, but if the right hon. gentleman who tells us he never resided in the United States would think a little more in terms of Canada than in terms of the American republic, we would have our people working. It would affect not only the 100,000 people who are now fed in the soup kitchens of this country, to the great disgrace not of Canada but of the Canadian government, but it would affect also 400,000 other Canadians who are endeavouring to find employment in this country.
The other day my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Cantley) stated that there is coming into this country each day $1,000,000 worth of steel and steel products. Eighty per cent of those products could be manufactured in Canadian steel mills; why are they not manufactured here? The reason is that we have a government in Canada that is legislating not so much in the interests of Canada as in the interests of the republic to the south. It is time for someone in Canada to speak up about this condition. When you speak about it, however, you are hushed by the Prime Minister. He will tell us that we must not provoke the United States, even to the extent of giving up the livelihood of Canadian men and women. I admire the great republic to the south, and I seek no ground to disagree with them. I say, however, that when young men in public life in this country-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I had almost completed my remarks.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. gentleman's time is up.


William Irvine: I wish to read once again the amendment which is before the house. Although it has been read by several hon. members, I wish to make special reference to the inference drawn by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), namely, that the amendment necessarily involves a large expenditure of money. It is quite clear that the terms of the motion do not justify that inference. With that in mind I shall read it once more. It was moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland):
That in the opinion of this house the government should take immediate action to deal with the question of unemployment.
There may be many ways of " dealing " with unemployment without expending public money. That is for the government to discover.
I have been amazed at the amount of heat which has developed in this discussion, and with few exceptions I have been amazed equally by the lack of light. I was surprised that the saintly, peace-loving Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) should have injected a note of antagonism in his reply to the argument of the hon. member for North Winnipeg. Certainly he did not hold true to his title of peacemaker when he opened this debate by baiting the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) and by placing the whole discussion on a low, narrow partisan basis. I am interested in this question of unemployment because it is the most outstanding indication of the disintegration which is taking place in modern civilization. I am interested in it, moreover, from the point of view of a student; above all I am interested in it because of its human implications. Because of my interest in the matter from these points of view I deplore the attitude taken by hon. members in this discussion. Unquestionably there has been an effort on the part of some hon. gentlemen to extract political advantage from the tragic condition we have been trying to discuss. I should think the hon. members who have tried to do that have indicated that they are more skilled in political strategy than they are in economics. If hon. members of this house were to get their deserts for their failure to cope with the vital problem now before us I fear, Mr. Speaker, that very few of us would come back after the next election.


Richard Burpee Hanson: " Speak for yourself, John."

Unemployment-Mr. Irvine


William Irvine: Yes, I am speaking for myself also in this regard, for I must acknowledge, with other men who have been entrusted with public office, that the question of unemployment has represented so far the bankruptcy of statesmanship throughout the civilized world. If you will permit me to call myself a statesman of the bankruptcy type, I must line myself up with all the others and say: "We have failed to find a solution for the problem.''
Catch phrases suitable for winning elections never have been noted for their achievements 'n settling matters of great economic importance. Our consumers' league across the way, with their fine phrases about free trade, find that the problem has escaped them; hon. gentlemen to my right, with their phrases about higher protection, are not touching the problem either. Even a greater party, in my opinion, than either of the two parties in this house, the Labour party of Great Britain, seems to have gone to seed also on the catchword of public ownership, thinking that would be a solution. Unfortunately, up to this point even that great government has not found much of a solution for unemployment.
I want to support the resolution, Mr. Speaker, because it deals with a question that confronts not only Canada but the entire civilized world to-day, a question which is ominous and one for which a solution must be found or civilization itself will succumb. Then I want to support also the suggestion of the hon. member who moved the resolution that, as a tentative thing, giving assistance to those who are suffering at the present time from the evils of unemployment, a system of unemployment insurance should be introduced. I agree that that is a tentative thing; it is temporary, something to be carried on until we have found a solution for the problem. While there is no better solution I agree that this should be done. In the absence of that better way, to which I have referred, I should say that unemployment insurance is an imperative need in Canada today, as it is in other countries.
Surely unemployment will be taken as a fact without any wealth of figures to demonstrate it. To argue in this house that there is such a thing as unemployment and to back up that argument with copious figures, seems to me analogous to an attempt to prove that the world is round, quoting once again the old arguments which support that view. I think unemployment is a fact as well established in the minds of the people of the country to-day as is the physical fact of the shape of the planet on which we live. It is a fact which bears with it some problems which are

grim, ugly and ominous. Indeed, unemployment is no longer confined merely to the wage earners. Of course we always have had an unemployed rich class; they are still with us, only they are a little more fortunate than the other unemployed. They can live on interest, but the unemployed at the other end of the social order cannot live on nothing.
There are intellectual workers in the ranks of the unemployed. Our public school system with its easier access to institutions of secondary education is overstocking the market in the professional world. Lawyers, doctors and teachers, while they may not be actually lined up in the ranks of the unemployed, are finding it more and more difficult to get employment at fair remuneration in the work to which they have devoted their lives and their study. We also have industries unemployed, with millions of dollars' worth of machinery tied up, rusting, and doing nothing. There you have unemployment of a kind which will appeal to hon. members of this house.
As I say, unemployment is not confined to one class; it is becoming more and more not only an acute problem but one that is widespread. It is the most prominent symptom of a civilization which is in the process of disintegration. How far that disintegration will go, no one knows; whether intelligence will arrest this disintegration and gather together the decaying pieces remains yet to be seen. I think it was H. G. Wells who remarked in this connection that civilization was in a great race between intelligence and disaster. Judging from the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Labour I would be inclined to bet on disaster winning the race; if we are to depend upon the labour leader of this country; if his utterances may be taken as indicative of his views and his activity in this matter; if we are to take that as the leadership of Canada on a question of this kind, and if it requires intelligence to divert disaster, then disaster is absolutely certain. This is a condition which, more than anything else, attracts the attention of the student and creates deep apprehension on the part of all who wish to save modern civilization.
As my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) very ably pointed out, this situation is universal; it is not merely Canada which we are discussing when we talk about unemployment. Just for a moment I should like to refer very briefly to some figures. The London Daily Herald, which may be regarded as the mouthpiece of organized labour in Great Britain, estimates that to-day there are 30,000,000 unemployed in the civilized world,

Unemployment-Mr. Irvine
and that the crisis extends over the entire globe. There are about 6,000,000 unemployed in the United States; about 4,583,000 idle workers in Germany; approximately 1,000,000 unemployed in Japan, and several millions in Russia. So it goes on. As I say, it is a universal situation, and I do not see any reason why the Prime Minister should have become so angered and displeased to-day because in Canada we arc facing a problem which every government in civilization must face and is facing with at least some degree of sincerity and intelligence.
I would go so far as to say that unemployment is inevitable under an economic system which depends upon machine production, profit and distribution through the wage system. Perhaps enough has been said to demonstrate the effects of modern machinery on this question of unemployment, but I will just add one or two little quotations to the point. I should like to read one short extract from an article which appeared in a recent issue of the New Republic:
As a result of labour's growing productivity, American manufacturers were able to get along with over 400,000 fewer men in 1927 than in 1923, and to reduce their wage bill by nearly $160,000,000. In the meantime, the value of factory output increased by over two billions. The consequence was that the wage bill dropped from 18.2 per cent to 17.3 per cent of the gross value of factory product.
One more quotation:
Still more important is the record of profits. ' Between 1923 and 1925, the profits of a group of 403 manufacturers and mining corporations increased 29 per cent. Between 1925 and 1928, the profits of a larger group (574 in all) increased 27 per cent, to a new high record. This makes a gain of nearly 64 per cent between 1923 and 1928. The National City bank reports that the earnings of 375 industrial corporations during the first quarter of 1929 were_ 37 per cent above the corresponding period in 1928. "Many concerns," says the bank in its July review of business, "have in six months made more profits than in the year 1928."
Surely this statement, which is not an isolated one, could be taken as evidence of the effect of machine production on unemployment.
One honourable statesman across the aisle has suggested that the unemployed should go back to the farms. It must be apparent to anyone who is studying this situation that industrialization of agriculture will have the same effect as has the industrialization of other branches of industry. Farmers by the use of machinery are enabled to produce more with half the labour necessary twenty years ago. I quote from Saturday Night, which
should be authoritative to hon. gentlemen opposite, as follows:
During the past 20 years the farm population (of the United States) has decreased nearly 5.500,000. Figures of the bureau of agricultural economics show that the farm population of the United States in 1909 was 32,000,000. In 1929 this had decreased to 27,511,000. About
1.960.000	persons left the farms last year,
1.978.000	in 1927 and 2,155,000 in 1926.
Those who expect to settle the unemployment situation by settling people on the farm will have to face the fact of possible unemployed agriculturists. In fact, these men from the farms are flocking to the cities of Canada in hundreds and thousands, and are aggravating the problem which is already acute.
One of the factors to be considered as a cause of unemployment is the supplanting of men by machinery, the effects of which will be increased as time goes on. Another factor in our economic system which inevitably causes unemployment is known as the profit system. I am not speaking against that system, although I would do so readily if that were pertinent to the discussion.
My intention is to find out the effect of the profit system upon unemployment. Some other time I may extend my argument, but at present I desire only to show that the system under which we are operating, the profit system, makes unemployment inevitable. Why? Because the price of all manufactured goods includes not only all the overhead expense involved in manufacturing, but, as well, a little more than the amount expended, otherwise there can be no profit. Will any hon. gentleman in this house tell me where that "little more" is to come from? Will any hon. gentleman say that there is available as purchasing power among the masses of the people any other money than that which has been distributed in the processes of production? Since in order to realize a profit a manufactured article must be sold for more money than was expended in its production, the result must be that less goods are sold than were actually produced. That is to say, there must inevitably remain a surplus of goods at the end of every producing year. Those goods are placed upon the shelves in our warehouses; next year additional goods are added, and by manufacturers, who of course cannot afford to manufacture goods for pleasure, are forced to discharge their man and again by that act the purchasing power of the country is further reduced. This state of affairs progresses until we reach the very bottom of what we call the period of depression.
The first factor in our system which tends to create unemployment is the supplanting of

Unemployment-Mr. Irvine
human power by mechanical power. The second is the profit system, whereby goods manufactured must be sold for a price greater than the amount of money distributed in their manufacture. Therefore, the total goods manufactured cannot be purchased, which leaves a surplus, and that surplus continually piling up ultimately means unemployment.
Let us look at the third factor, distribution through the wage system. No matter how much we are able to produce, we can distribute only to the extent of the purchasing power of the masses of the people. This is a verj' interesting study, but I do not think I would be thanked by hon. members of the house if I were to consume the remainder of my forty minutes in a discussion of this factor. For the benefit of those hon. gentlemen who may not have thought it worth while to study a question of this kind, I think I should indicate certain works which they could look up for themselves. I would recommend to those hon. gentlemen that they should read what Keynes has to say, and what the Hon. Reginald McKenna has to say. They should read the works of Major Douglas, and those of Maurice Colborne, who gave a performance last week in the city. They should read Arthur Kitson, and Warren Edwin Brokaw. They should read Wells, Shaw, Vowles, Cousins, Wakinshaw and Professor Soddy. Those gentlemen are well able to set forth the principles of what we call the new economics to the full satisfaction of hon. gentlemen who perhaps would not thank me for spending my time in outlining to them those principles.
But perhaps I should expound the point I am dealing with, namely the distribution through the wage system. In the price of an article there is included items which we might designate as A, B, C and D, that is. wages, profits, overhead, replacement of plant, price of raw material, and so forth. Those items of cost must be included in the selling price of an article; therefore, although we may say that the price represents A, B, C and D, the only thing we have with which to buy it is A, and A cannot possibly purchase A plus B, plus C, plus D. There you have the algebra, if you like of this problem.
I would suggest that before a solution can be found for this problem, there must be developed a new aim for industry itself We have to come to the conclusion that merely to find work will not longer be regarded as an intelligent basis of subsistance. It is surely positively ridiculous for us to say that the man who does not work cannot live, when there is not any wrork for the man to do. Why not hang him at once and be done with
[Mr. Irvine.l
it? Why let him have three weeks of misery and hell of mind and body on account of his family when we could get rid of him in an electric chair? Why not be sensible about the matter if that is the only cure hon. gentlemen have for unemployment? If hon. gentlemen are Christian, the electric chair is more Christian than unemployment; it would certainly be much more humane to do that than to do nothing.
Mr. YOUNG CWevburn): Does a doctor kill the man that he cannot cure?


William Irvine: I wish we had some doctor for my hon. friend. I am quite certain he could not cure him and I would not say a word if he did the other thing. In regard to the curse which fell upon mankind, the curse of work, according to the Book which my hon. friend over there follows, the situation has been reversed and now everybody wants to be cursed, everybody wants work. To-day the man who is really cursed is the man who cannot get work. If I had time I should like to tell hon. members I do not want work and I do not want anybody else to work, but until we find a better way of distributing what machinery can produce, I suppose we shall have to stay with the outworn system. If, however, we are going to stay with it we must organize our industrial pursuits and regulate hours of labour so that every man will have an eaual opportunity. We must also stabilize wages on a living basis and not pay men for two hours instead of eight hours when there is not eight hours' work for everybody. That is such an elementary proposh tion, one would expect even a consumers' league to understand it. and yet they do not. It is surely uneconomic to produce goods which are not consumed. Such a condition is of course the defeat of economics, and yet that is what we are doing in Canada and in every other country, namely, producing goods which cannot be consumed because we have not discovered how to get them to the consumers.
I think it is true that the greater the surplus of production, the greater will be the unemployment. In that respect I believe the Prime Minister will have to accept responsibility for unemployment, for he has proved, or tried to prove to us, that last year was the greatest year in production that Canada had ever seen:	it was unprecedented. I
forget all the adjectives which the Prime Minister called to his assistance to express this tremendous output which characterized the industrial life of Canada last year. If he would just study the problem he would find

Unemployment-Mr. Irvine
that this is the very reason why unemployment is greater than it ever was before, because production being so great and there being no market for it, the men are thrown out of employment. The shelves are all filled up with goods, but there is nobody to buy them and nothing to buy them with. So the Prime Minister is probably right when he says that last year we produced more than we did in any previous year and so we have more unemployment now than we had at any other time.
The government is surely not going to try to escape entirely from its responsibility in these matters. To begin with, the government is certainly responsible for the administration of finance. It is responsible, as one hon. gentleman in debate to-night pointed out, for the management of our railway system. It is responsible for the expenditure of money, hundreds of millions of dollars of public money on all kinds of undertakings. It is, or at least it has been up to the present time, responsible for the immigration policy of this country. All these things have a direct bearing upon unemployment, and surely the government is not going to sit here and authorize the bringing in of thousands of immigrants to swell the already over-swollen volume of unemployment, to administer finance without regard to its economic significance, and to get away from the direct responsibility which any self-respecting government ought to be anxious to assume. Refusal by word of mouth to accept responsibility will not be sufficient to enable my hon. friends to escape from it, because responsibility has a way of sticking closer than a brother. The government, as I say, is trying to deny its share of the responsibility. We ought to follow for a moment the idea about greater production and its corollary of unemployment. I notice that the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) and the Prime Minister were both deeply concerned about the farmer in this proposition; indeed, they were solicitous for him. The Prime Minister went even so far as to ask: When did a deputation of agriculturists come to the government and ask for assistance to the unemployed? Since when, for instance, has the Prime Minister been interested in deputations of agriculturists? Did they ever come to him and ask him to increase tariffs against them? I do not think they did, but he did not hesitate to increase them, and he did not hesitate to fail to reduce them. So I am rather surprised that he, having disregarded the farmers before, should now take such an interest in them.
But let me point out that this question of purchasing power which underlies unemployment is the real problem of agriculture as well as of labour. Do hon. members realize that while we had a comparatively small crop last year, nevertheless we could not sell it to advantage nor have we been able to do so as yet, and while we were in the position that we could not get rid of our wheat, millions of people in China were actually starving, unable to get our wheat? There you have internationally the same problem that we have nationally in respect to unemployment. It is a question of money. Moreover we shall have to get the idea that industry is a human proposition. That is, every industry shall be measured, not by its output, not by the size of the payroll, but in terms of the human element which it has turned out. Has our producing system actually produced greater, nobler, wiser and happier men and women? That is the measuring standard I would expect the Prime Minister who wrote Industry and Humanity to use, when considering the problem which we are now discussing. We must have a new function for finance also. It would be interesting, if I had time, to deal with who creates the money, especially when we realize how important the creation of money is to the distribution of goods.


George Reginald Geary: Tell us privately.


William Irvine: I will tell my hon. friend
publicly. He will agree with me that there is much more money in circulation in Canada to-day than there was fifty years ago. Where did it come from? Who is the manufacturer of money? Do hon. gentlemen think it snows money? If any hon. gentleman or any gentleman anywhere is entrusted with making money, how do we know he has made enough or too much of it? In any case, who has charge of the matter? Let me give a quotation from Major C. H. Douglas who, in an address on "Where money comes from" before the International Engineering Congress at Tokyo, said:
It is astonishing, when we consider the importance to every one of us of money in our daily life, that most people have no conception of where money comes from beyond a hazy idea that a certain amount of it is dug out of the ground in the form of gold, silver and copper, and the rest of it is printed and issued through a government department. But as a matter of fact money in this form only bears a very trivial relation to the amount of available purchasing power, insufficient as the latter has been stated to be. The total amount of money in circulation, in the form of gold, silver, copper and paper coinage is, in Great Britain, only

Unemployment-Mr. Irvine
about .7 of one per cent of the total amount of bank clearings, or less than 10 per cent of bank deposits, available to be drawn or for purchasing purposes. Money is created by banks in the form of bank credits.
Perhaps we would go a long way towards solving the unemployment problem if we studied the question; who issues the purchasing power which is available to the people of Canada with which to buy goods? There are numerous other quotations that I should like to give, but my time is flying.
There is another statement that I wish to make, and that is that credit control is a very important factor in the prevention of unemployment, or at least in the problem that lies behind unemployment.
Someone has mentioned Fi-ance in this debate. I would mention France first, of course, for the reason that it has no unemployment. But there are two reasons at least why France has no unemployment. First of all, France has had a stationary population for a great many years. The second reason is that France did not deflate and go back to the gold basis after the war. Hon. gentlemen here who were so anxious to rush back to the gold basis, not knowing what they were doing, are now reaping some of the fruits of their stupidity. Some hon. gentleman says that we are not on a gold basis now. That does not worry me. We ought to be forced back to it so that hon. gentlemen would realize fully the result of such a policy. France did not do that, and to-day, according to this morning's Ottawa Citizen, the French franc is worth 4 cents where it used to be worth 20 cents in international exchange, and the Belgian franc is worth still less. But the French and Belgian people have been kept employed. Purchasing power has been maintained at least sufficiently to keep the wheels of industry running steadily. So hon. gentlemen who quote France as having no unemployment had better examine all the factors before rushing to conclusions that such is due to her tariff policy.
Poverty, which results from unemployment, is preventable. Unemployment is the secondary cause of poverty. Poverty itself is preventable. We have the equipment, we have the resources, we have the intelligence, and we have the skill. There used to be a time when it was said that tuberculosis was not preventable, but the doctors got busy and now it is preventable. To-day it is said that cancer is incurable, but the doctors are now working on that. They do not deny their responsibility. Some day they will be successful in finding a cure. Unemployment, I say, is the chief

secondary cause of poverty. Our government denies its responsibility and refuses even to work on the proposition. I want to ask that the government reconsider the position that has been taken by the Prime Minister, and give relief in this unemployment situation, if it is necessary. I do not know whether it is necessary now or not, but we ought to find out. Let the government give a lead and go as far as it can constitutionally to organize a system of unemployment insurance. If after that the provinces do not follow in the manner presented by the constitution we will know where the blame is to be placed. Let a permanent commission be appointed to study this problem until a solution is found.
I want to say something about the Prime Minister's speech. He was very definite about what he cannot do and what he will not do, but very hazy about what we think he ought to do. I think he is obligated to making a an attempt to solve the problem, and we are not going to be satisfied with his old constitutional argument. He says that he does not want to take the taxpayers' money to be expended perhaps in some isolated community in the west or in the east as the case might be. Let me read the admirable words of the right hon. gentleman when he was speaking in this house in 1926, when the old age pension legislation went through. Someone took the objection that such legislation was ultra vires of this parliament, and the Prime Minister said:
In that regard may I say that as between the different provinces I fail to see where there is any distinction to be drawn between the money voted by this parliament, say for the purposes of immigration, which may go to place a man or woman in any one of the provinces, and money voted for preserving the individual, no matter in what part of the Dominion he may be found. Human beings are the greatest of the resources of the country. What we are here considering is human life. An individual, no matter which province he is in, is an asset to the Dominion as a whole, and it is from that point of view that the Dominion is, I think, considering this matter.
If an old gentleman of seventy years of age is an asset to Canada, surely a young man of seventeen or twenty or twenty-seven is an even greater asset; and the very same logic which the Prime Minister applies to old age pensions must be applied to the suggestion put forward by my hon. friend from North Winnipeg. The Prime Minister says that he has had no requests from the provinces for assistance. For obvious reasons. In the first place, they know that it would be useless. In the second place, the provincial premiers do not wish to put themselves into the position of advising the Prime Minister as to his duty and responsibility in regard to this matter,

Unemployment-Mr. MacDonald (C. Breton)
so naturally they may have been a little reticent in this regard.
I am sorry that the Prime Minister felt called upon to state that he would not give five cents of the money from the public treasury of this Dominion to a Tory provincial government anywhere. I will not say much about that because I feel sure that the Prime Minister was not quite himself when he said it. I mean to say that he is usually so courteous and generous in debate, but today he was angry and said things that I feel sure he himself will be sorry for. I do not think that that is the practice of the Prime Minister. I think he is bigger than that.
The Prime Minister went on to place the blame on the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada for his having failed to call an economic conference. If that is true the congress will have to answer to organized labour.
I shall conclude my references to the Prime Minister's speech by recalling his remarks in connection with the argument of my hon. friend from Bow River. The Prime Minister indicated in his closing remarks that the attitude of the hon. member for Bow River was that everything that could be known about this subject was known already, and therefore there was no need to appoint any commission to investigate. I think that the shafts of the right hon.. gentleman's sarcarsm went very wide the mark. If he will examine the speech of the hon. member for Bow River, he will find that the hon. member was merely asking for an economic commission to find a solution for the problem. That is where I think the Prime Minister missed the point.


Finlay MacDonald: The subject brought up by the
amendment of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) is one in which I am deeply interested. I have the honour to represent a county that is entirely industrial, being comprised largely of coal miners and steel workers. We have no leisured class in my county, and every man and woman in it is intensely interested in the question of unemployment. The amendment itself asks the house to declare that the government should take immediate action to deal with the question of unemployment. It is probably in its terms a little narrow, but in the course of the discussion that has taken place this afternoon a very wide range of subjects has been covered. Possibly the amendment is so worded as to admit discussion not only on the question of unemployment but also on the causes and the cure, if a cure can be found. The discussion, as I have said, has taken a wide
range. For the most part it has consisted of theories; we have heard various theories discussed by hon. members, ranging over distribution, consumption, finance, industry, capital-anything having the nearest or remotest relation to unemployment has been discussed. But, as was pointed out by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), in his quotation of a remark by Grover Cleveland, it is a condition and not a theory that confronts us. An ordinary person, if he were asked what is the cure for unemployment, would naturally say "work." It is far better to give a man work than to give him insurance against unemployment. And it is to that feature of the question that I intend to address most of my remarks.
We on this side of the house contend, rightly or wrongly, that the fiscal policy of the government is largely responsible for the unemployment in this country at the present time, and I propose to submit some facts in support of my contention. I listened to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) yesterday, and I may tell him frankly that I sympathize with him. I understand how difficult is his position. I know he felt that he had not been successful in getting his colleagues in the cabinet to see eye to eye with him in labour matters. I fully appreciate the difficulty he had in trying to defend the action of the government in regard to labour conditions. Not only do I sympathize with him, I appreciate the importance of his position, as I know he does. He speaks articulately for labour in this country, and in my opinion there is no portfolio more important, more fraught with good or evil towards a great body of our people than the portfolio he holds. I listened to his speech and I congratulate him on one aspect of it-it was probably as good a defence of his position and the position of the government as could be made; and although the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to-day employed the same arguments that the Minister of Labour used yesterday, in my opinion he made no better defence.
I understood the Minister of Labour to rest his defence on three grounds. First-and in this possibly the Prime Minister went further than did the Minister of Labour; he said there was really no unemployment problem in this country at the present time. The Minister of Labour did not go that far; as a matter of fact he said he was not stating that there was no question of unemployment confronting us; he admitted there was. As I say, the Prime Minister went a little further. On the strength of not having received any word
1266	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. MacDonald (C. Breton)
from the premiers of the various provinces, he boldly stated that unemployment did not prevail to any serious extent. In short, the Prime Minister made an election speech; but, [ repeat, I do not think he made as good a defence of his government as did the Minister of Labour.
The second ground taken by the Minister of Labour was that unemployment was just as bad in other countries. He may be right. But he spent most of his time in dealing with totally irrelevant matters-the construction of the trans-Canada highway and questions of local interest that have absolutely nothing to do with unemployment. The impression we all received from the speeches of the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister is that the government is opposed to the idea of unemployment insurance. There is no question that the government is so opposed.
The third ground was that the Minister of Labour had ordered a great deal of work to be done, and had gone out of his way to ask the railways to provide employment. But unfortunately he did not go into particulars in that respect and show us how much work he had ordered and how much employment he had persuaded the railways to provide. I think the Minister of Labour made a mistake in trying to place responsibility on the Conservative party for something they had done in order to justify the stand he was taking. He quoted, in part, from an order in council for the purpose of showing that the Conservatives in days gone by had said that unemployment was a municipal question. But when he had to read the whole order in council, it threw a very different light on the question, and I think the minister would have been far better advised had he confined himself to a straight story of what he had done and what he proposed to do to meet the unemployment situation. Also, he was a little indefinite in defending the speech he made at London. That was a forward-looking speech for him to make. We all recognize that when a minister makes a public statement he binds his government, that is, if the government is guided by the usual constitutional principle of cabinet solidarity. We find now that the interpretation placed on his London speech was not justified by any action the government had taken or proposed to take. The Minister of Labour has put himself in a false position with regard to the labour of this country:	he makes a stetement on a
public platform as to what he intends to do and what the Prime Minister and the government will back him up in doing, and when he comes to the House of Commons and is ques-
tioned about it, the Prime Minister absolutely refuses to back him up, and takes a different ground altogether. With regard to unemployment, in my view there is only one cure, and that is work. Has this government been guilty of any act, either legislative or administrative, that has injured employment in Canada? After all, employment insurance is a good thing only under certain circumstances. We in Cape Breton would hold up both hands for it if we could get it. Every winter we are faced with this problem. During the summer months we ship our coal by water, but in the winter months, when water transportation is not available, the mines have to work on half or quarter time, and the men through no fault of their own have to be idle. They are willing and anxious to work, and would be quite content to enter into any scheme of contributory unemployment insurance.
The idea behind insurance is one of security. There are three things, of course, that the labouring man wants: first, fair wages; second, fair hours; third, security in his work. For the present we may dispense with consideration of the first two. It is the principle of security for the man disabled at work which underlies unemployment insurance. That principle was recommended to this government in the Mathers report away back in 1921. I am going to read from sections 35 and 36:
35.	This is something which affects all wage earners, but more especially the casual labourer. He can never be sure just when his employment will terminate and he will be left without the means of subsistence.
36.	Unemployment may arise from other causes than the loss of his job. He may be incapacitated by sickness, invalidity or old age. Very few labourers are able, out of their earnings, to make provision for these contingencies. We recommend to your government the question of making some provision by a system of state social insurance for those who through no fault of their own are unable to work, whether the inability arises from lack of opportunity, sickness, invalidity or old age. Such insurance would remove the spectre of fear which now haunts the wage earner and make him a more contented and better citizen.
In what way does the fiscal policy of this government affect the question of unemployment? Take, for instance, the item of coal. The coal mines are idle for perhaps five months of the year. We import in the vicinity of 13,000,000 tons of coal from the United States, and last year we sent them $54,000,000 of our money. We have ample coal in this country in the eastern and western sections to meet all domestic demands for that commodity. For three or four years those of us who come from coal-producing counties have

Unemployment-Mr. MacDonald (C. Breton)
been urging upon the government the desirability of inaugurating a national fuel policy. Instead of that, however, we find imports of coal from other countries increasing every year, and this year we have the additional news that 250,000 tons of coal from Soviet Russia will be brought into Canada. That is a serious matter for us, because such an importation will displace a certain amount of our coal. Three years ago I submitted to this government in my remarks on the budget a proposition by which a national fuel policy could be evolved. Instead of that the government contented itself with bringing down the bonus to coking plants bill. There never was, I suppose, in the history of all the legislation brought into this house a bigger piece of fake legislation than that coke ovens bill. It pretended to offer a subsidy for the creation of coke ovens in Canada. Three years have gone by and needless to say not a dollar has been granted under the bill, because nobody has applied for it. Nobody ever will apply for it so long as the policy of this country is to allow coke into Canada free of duty, and to give a rebate on coal brought in for the purpose of producing coke. We can supply all the coal that is needed; all we want is a sensible suggestion as to how we can solve this problem, because it is not beyond the power of man to do it. Two or three days ago I got a letter from my home town stating that 500 men had been laid off the steel works there because there was no work for them. Yet every day one million dollars' worth of iron and steel products is brought into this country. This government, since it came into power, has lowered the duty on fifty-five different items in the iron and steel schedule.
Is there any connection between the fiscal policy of the present government and unemployment in Canada to-day? Theories may be all right, but the moment you subject them to the acid test of practical business principles they go to the wind. While the Utopian theories and ideas of world revolution are all very fine and may come to pass centuries hence, the question for us at the present time is to deal with the immediate problems that face us. My submission is that until there is a different outlook on the part of the government things will be very little better so far as unemployment is concerned. I think it was the hon. member for Bow River who said he did not think the result was so very different whether we had protection or free trade. I may be a bit of a free trader myself, up to a certain limit; I believe in free trade in boots and shoes, hats and caps, clothing, furniture and flour, but I am not a
free trader with regard to coal and steel. When it comes to coal and steel I want a duty, but I cannot get that duty unless I give the other fellow protection on hats, caps, boots, shoes, clothing and furniture, and I am willing to do that because I am satisfied that it is the only way I can get what I consider to be necessary.
Let me say just a word or two in regard to the constitutional question. If ever a smoke screen was thrown around a subject, it has been the case with regard to the invoking of the British North America Act in connection with this matter, and the statement that primarily it is one for the provinces or the municipalities to deal with. I say it is nothing of the kind. In 1864, when the British North America Act was being framed, the statesmen of that day who builded better than they knew could not foresee everything that was likely to happen. They did hand over something to the provinces and the provinces in turn handed it over to the municipalities, where we now have what is known as the Poor Relief Act. Under that act, which I assume is practically the same in nearly all the English speaking provinces, a man who has a settlement in a particular district and who is in need of support is entitled to get it from that district. If he has no settlement there but has a settlement in some other part of the province of Nova Scotia, he can be moved there where he will receive his support. If he has his settlement outside the province then the province has to take the responsibility of sending him to that outside district where he belongs. Beyond that the Dominion government must step in and deport the man if necessary, so the so-called constitutional aspect of this question is not a factor at all.
The question of unemployment is one which affects all the people of Canada, and we cannot take it away from this government by handing it over to the municipalities. I think the Minister of Labour made that clear in his speech at London. He stated that his idea was that a system should be inaugurated which would be suitable to Canadian needs. He said:
Take, for example, our Canadian railroad workers-in the summer time there are upwards of 200,000 men employed, and during the winter periods there are about 25,000 of those workers laid off for several months. The wages of all railwaymen average about $130 per month. If a fund were created, it would take about $5,000,000 to pay these employees half-pay for three months.
The Minister of Labour knows very well that no province could undertake anything of that sort; any such system must come from
Debates Committee

this government. In the light of these facts and with the knowledge possessed by the minister, why should he try to throw the responsibility on the provinces?
Another question which is very pertinent is this:	The Prime Minister himself said
the provinces had not asked for such a scheme and that no demand had been made for it.


Mr. HEENAN:: If my hon. friend would
read a little further he would see where some of the finances would come from.


Finlay MacDonald: Yes, I know that; this suggested solution of the problem might be all right, but it never can be carried out by one province with regard to a railway system which passes through seven or eight provinces. Not one of these provinces could bring such a scheme into operation, because of the fact that the railway crosses so many other provinces as well. The very illustration given by the minister shows how futile is his suggestion that it is a matter for the provinces.
The Prime Minister also says that the provinces never have asked for this scheme. The provinces did not ask for the old age pensions scheme; why was it forced upon them. That legislation was passed in this house without the provinces having been consulted; general legislation was passed and the provinces were invited to take part in it. The same thing could be done here; it might be worked out on the same basis as workmen's compensation. There is no difficulty and no obstacle in the way of putting this unemployment insurance in force if only you are honest about it. Unemployment insurance should be on an actuarial basis, as is the case with all other forms of insurance.
On motion of Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Probably it
will be the wish of hon. members of the house to continue this debate to-morrow. In order that the matter may be regularized, with the consent of the house I would move:
That standing order No. 28 be suspended on Friday, April 4th instant, and that motion be then made that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April, 4, 1930