1937-03-03

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938, was pre^ sented by Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) when the supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1937, will be laid on the table?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer definitely. Of course the departments concerned are attempting to get their figures

together in sufficient time before the end of the fiscal year to cover everything. I expect to get along with the work as fast as possible, and will bring down the estimates as soon as I can.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. McCULLOCH:: 1.	What was the total amount provided by the estimates for 1935-1936 for expenditure for all purposes including salaries for the Yukon?
2.	What was the total amount expended from said estimates in the Yukon in the said fiscal year ?
3.	What is the population of the Yukon?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	$568,081.54.
2.	$541,619.65.
3.	The population of the Yukon on June 1, 1931, was 4,230.


NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION-SALARIES AND LIVING ALLOWANCES
Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: On page 344 of Hansard, members of the National Employment Commission are shown as having received certain sums of money as salaries, and on page 833 of Hansard, the same members are shown as having received identical sums as living allowances.
1.	Were these sums paid to members of the commission twice?
2.	What was the total paid to each member of the commission, for all purposes, during the period in question?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	No.
2.	Total received for all purposes, A. B. Purvis, nil; A. N. McLean, $1,141.07; Alfred Marois. $2,446.75; *Tom Moore, $228.95; Mrs. M. M. Sutherland, $5,590.93; W. A. Mackintosh, S2.196.9S; E. J. Young. $4.55905.
* No salary paid to commissioner Tom Moore as a member of the National Employment Commission as he is in receipt of a salary of $9,000 per annum, less the 5 per cent deduction, as a member of the employment and social insurance commission.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	What was the date of appointment of each member of the National Employment Commission?
2.	What was the amount of travelling expenses and living allowance paid to each member?
3.	Does the $20 per day salary paid to certain members of the commission include Sundays and holidays?


Mr. ROGERS:: I desire to file a corrected answer to this question which appeared in Votes and Proceedings of February 5, 1937.


1C37
[Stage Direction]
Questions
1. May 15, 1936.
2.	Travelling and	Living
	actual expenses	allow-
Name		ance
A. B. Purvis.. ..	.. Nil	
A. N. McLean.. .	. . $1,141 07	
Alfred Marois.. .	. . 603 75	
Tom Moore.. ..	.. 228 95	
Mrs. M. Sutherland.. 2,151 93		Nil*
W. A. Mackintosh	.. . 771 00	
E. J. A^oung .. ..	.. 1.538 25	
3.	The S20 a day is subject to the Salary Deduction Act. They are paid only for days on which they have actually worked.
* No provision for living allowance under the act.

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Who are the members of the National Employment Commission's youth committee, when were they appointed, and for what purpose?
2.	What remuneration do they receive, and allowances or travelling expenses?
3.	What has been the result of their work, and to whom do they report?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The youth employment committee is a special committee of five (5) members of the national advisory committee, appointed by P.C. 2242 of the 2nd September, 1936, under Section 9, Subsection 2 of the National Employment Commission Act, 1936, as follows: Date of appointment:
Allan Chambers, of Victoria, B.C., Chairman, July 4, 1936.
Joseph McCulley, of Newmarket, Ontario, August 11, 1936.
Rev. R. F. Thompson, of Toronto, Ontario, August 11, 1936.
Andre Montpetit, of Montreal, Quebec, September 2. 1936.
W. Clifford Nickerson, of Halifax, N.S., September 2, 1936.
2.	No remuneration. A living allowance of Fifteen dollars ($15) per diem, payable when away from home on the business of the committee, which covers all travelling and living expenses except transportation.
3.	The committee reports to the national employment commission and, to date, has made two (2) main and three (3) supplementary reports.


GOLD IN THE TREASURY, PURCHASED, AND EXPORTED
Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.	How many ounces of gold are now held by the Canadian government, (a) on behalf of 31111-914
the treasury; (b) on behalf of the Bank of Canada; (c) on behalf of foreign governments;
(d)	in the dominion mint; (e) is there any gold still being held by the chartered banks of Canada either in bullion or in currency?
2.	How many ounces of gold did the dominion government purchase during the twelve months ending on January 31, 1937?
3.	What was the average weekly purchase by the Canadian government of mined gold during the three months ending January 31, 1937?
4.	How many ounces of gold were exported by the Canadian government to. (a) the United States of America; (b) the United Kingdom;
(c)	all other foreign countries?
5.	What is the amount of gold being held by the United States of America and the United Kingdom and foreign countries to the credit of the Canadian government?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	(a) January 31. 1937-105.458 ounces, of which 103,432 ounces were held as reserve against Post Office Savings Bank deposits; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) January 31. 1937-176,218 ounces; (e) yes. $41,094 held in Canada and $955,459 held elsewhere as at December 31, 1936.
2.	3,637.143 ounces.
3.	74,566 ounces.
4.	12 months ended January 31, 1937: (a) 1,776,385 ounces; (b) 225,522 ounces; (c) nil.
In addition, gold sold by the government in the twelve months ended January 31, 1937, and held by the Bank of Canada for clients abroad, amounted to 1,466,249 ounces.
5.	Nil.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY-SUBSIDIES
Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	What subsidies or other assistance by way of land grants, cash grants, exemptions from taxation and otherwise have been given by the federal government of Canada to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company since its incorporation?
2.	What is the estimated total value of such subsidies and assistance in cash to date?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.
Dominion cash aid, including subsidies to main project and to acquired lines and leased
lines	$ 53,417,889 00
Book value of lines constructed by government and transferred to C.P.R	 37,791,435 00
Cas'h consideration for lands given up by Canadian Pacific '
Railway	 10,189,521 00
Total	$101,398,845 00
Questions

Assistance Under Unemployment Relief Acts
(a)	1930-33 Act of 1930, interest
on construction	$	863,550 00(b)	1931-32 Act of 1931, rail relaying (labour)	
209,196	98(c)	1932-33 Act of 1931, shopwork	
1,447,222	71(d)	1933-34 Act of 1932, shopwork	
1,000,000	00


S.P.W.C.A., 1935
[Stage Direction]
(e)	1935-36 Repairs to equipment	 1,270,000	00
(f)	1935-37 Purchase of equip- .
ment	 5,662,103	60
(g>
1936-37 Supplementary estimates provide grant to C.P.R. for employment of extra labour to maximum of
5,000	men	
1,323,426	17(h) For C.PR. costs in connection with above, as loan.. ..	554,700	00Total paid	$ 12,330,199 46
2.
Total cash subsidies and financial assistance	8113,629,044 46
Of the unemployment assistance, items (a),
(b)	and (g) are grants while the other items are subject to repayment as follows:
(c)	Repayable on demand (without interest) as soon as more than 5 per cent paid in dividends.
(d)	Repayable on demand (without interest) before any more dividends are paid on common stock.
(e)	Repayable 8100,000 per annum commencing 1938, with interest semi-annually at 4 per cent.
(f)	Repayable after two years in 13 instalments. No interest for two years. Then 3 per cent on balances outstanding.
(h) Loans repayable in five annual instalments to 1942, with interest at 2| per cent.
Dominion land grants, Canadian Pacific Railway-all lines, 26.108,988 acres.
The Canadian Pacific Railway Act (44 Vic., Cap. 1, 1881) and the contract of October 21, 1881, for the construction of the railway provided for the admission, duty free, of materials entering into construction, for certain restrictions as to competing lines for a limited period, for certain exceptions from taxation of the property of the railway, and for the taking of materials from public lands for construction purposes. Particulars of these provisions will be found set out in sections 10, 15, 16 and 19 of the contract, which is of parliamentary record.

Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	What would be the annual cost of broadcasting the debates of the House of Commons from the short wave station situated in Ottawa?
2.	Has the government given consideration to the desirability of broadcasting such debates in this way or otherwise?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I might say that the government does not think it would be advisable to broadcast the debates of the house.


CORONATION OATH
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What changes, if any, have been made in the coronation oath to be taken on May 12 next?
2.	Was Canada consulted, and what reply was given?
3.	Did the government ask for any changes? If so, what are they?
4.	Will any correspondence with His Majesty's government of Great Britain and Canada on the subject be laid on the table of the house.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The coronation oath taken by His Majesty King George V on June 22, 1911, was as follows:
"Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the respective laws and customs of the same?
King. I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop. Will you to your power cause law and justice, in mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?
King. I will.
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion established by law? And will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of England, and to the churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them, or any of them?
King. All this I promise to do."
The coronation oath to be taken by His Majesty King George VI on May 12, 1937, is as follows:
Q. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa, of your possessions and the other territories to any of them

Questions
belonging or pertaining, and of your empire of India, according to their respective laws and customs?
A. I solemnly promise so to do.
Q. Will you to your power cause law and justice, in mercy, to be; executed in all your judgments?
A. I will.
Q. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God and the true profession of the gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant reformed religion established by law? And will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of England, and to the churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them, or any of them?
A. All this I promise to do.
In view of press reports, it may be added that the King's Title, which was settled by proclamation issued under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act of 1927, does not appear in the form of coronation service, and has not been changed in any way.
2.	The Canadian government was consulted and concurred in the changes applicable to Canada.
3.	The Canadian government did not initiate the question but expressed the view that the phrasing of the first section of the oath as formerly administered was not in accordance with the existing constitutional relations, and that it would be appropriate that each of the members of the commonwealth should be enumerated.
4.	It would not be in accordance with established practice to table the correspondence, which indicates the views of other governments.


CALGARY BARRACKS-SAND AND GRAVEL
Mr. LANDERYOU:: 1.	How many cubic yards of unwashed pit run gravel have been used on the roadways of the government barracks at Calgary, Alberta, and what is the price per cubic yard for same?
2.	How many cubic yards of washed sand and gravel have been used in surfacing the roadways at the government barracks at Calgary, Alberta, in concrete work, and what is the price per cubic yard for same?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	1,165 cubic yards at 90 cents per cubic yard.
2.	1,227 cubic yards of washed sand at $2.50 per cubic yard. 3,057i cubic yards of washed gravel at $1.50 per cubic yard.


S0CKEYE SALMON TREATY
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Has the Fraser river treaty been ratified by the United States government? If so, on what date?
2.	If ratified, was it subject to any reservations, and, if so, what?
3.	Will the suggested reservations, if any, be submitted for consideration by this house?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No. On June 16th, 1936, the Senate of the United States gave its advice and consent to the ratification by the United States of the convention between Canada and the United States for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries in the Fraser river system, signed at Washington, May 26th, 1930.
2.	This resolution of the United States Senate was passed subject to the following understandings to be made a part of such ratification:
"(1) That the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission shall have no power to authorize any type of fishing gear contrary to the laws of the State of Washington or the Dominion of Canada;
"(2) That the commission shall not promulgate or enforce regulations until the scientific investigations provided for in the convention have been made, covering two cycles of sock-eye salmon runs, or eight years; and
"(3) That the commission shall set up an advisory committee composed of five persons from each country who shall be representatives of the various branches of the industry (purse seine, gill net, troll, sport fishing, and one other), which advisory committee shall be invited to all non-executive meetings of the commission and shall be given full opportunity to examine and to be heard on all proposed orders, regulations, or recommendations."
3.	These understandings, which under existing practice and precedents constitute clarifications or interpretations upon administrative aspects, appear to be not inconsistent with the principles and purpose of the convention; accordingly the question of their submission to parliament, which confirmed the convention in 1930, does not arise.
Questions
COMMON!


HON. C. P. FULLERTON
Mr. POULIOT:: Referring to the third paragraph of the last question on the second column of page 1052 of Hansard of February 17, 1937, was the remunerative payment of $30,000 given to Honourable C. P. Fullerton, K.C., paid by the Canadian National Railways or by the dominion government?


Mr. HOWE:: By Canadian National Railways.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	How many government owned wharves are in the county of Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	How many of these come under control of the Department of Transport?
3.	At what places are they located?
4.	How many of the above wharves have regularly appointed wharfingers?
5.	(a) What are the names of wharfingers; (b) what was the revenue receipts by each wharfinger for the fiscal year 1935-36?


Mr. RINFRET:: Return tabled herewith.


EMPLOYEES OF CANADIAN RAILWAYS
Mr. LECLERC:: 1.	What is the number of employees on the railways of Canada, according to the following categories: locomotive engineers and firemen, conductors, conductors of parlour-cars, conductors of sleeping-cars, employees of dining-cars, trainmen, maintenance of way employees, and others?
2.	(a) What is the hourly rate of pay, and the average number of hours that the above classes are employed monthly; (b) how many hours daily are these employees paid at the regular rate; (c) how many are paid time-and-a-half, and how many double-time?
3.	What are the average monthly salaries of the above-mentioned classes?
4.	How many railway employees are out of work at the present time?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled herewith.



HALIFAX, N.S., COAL IMPORTATIONS

Mr. BROOKS:: What quantity of coal, other than Canadian, was imported by water through the port of Halifax, Nova Scotia, from October 1, 1935, to December 31, 1936, information to be tabulated under the following headings: (a) date of arrival; (b) name of vessel; (c) consignee;
(d)	number of tons of coal; (e) grade; (f) value for duty; (g) duty paid, including sales tax and excise; (h) country in which coal produced?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Certain of the information asked for would, if given, disclose the private business of certain importers. That would be contrary to established practice. There is no objection to giving the remainder of the information, and, subject to the qualification I have indicated, I would ask that the question stand as an order for return.



VANDERHOOF-MANSON CREEK, B.C., ROAD CONTRACT

Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Did the federal government approve of a project to build or improve the road between Vanderhoof, and Manson Creek or Finlay Forks, British Columbia, in conjunction with the provincial government of British Columbia?
2.	What work was done on this project last year?
3.	What funds has the federal government indicated as its share to be spent on this project?
4.	What sum has already been spent?
5.	What sum is still available to be spent?
6.	Through what channels has the government contributed to this project?
7.	Who recommended that this project should be approved ?
8.	How much work has been provided for, for this coming summer on this project?


Mr. CRERAR:: Return tabled herewith.
MANSON CRP:EK, B.C., MINING PROPERTIES


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Are there any mining properties in the vicinity of Manson Creek, British Columbia, within a hundred mile radius?
2.	If so, (a) what are the names of the companies; (b) the names of the directors and managers?
3.	What mines are in operation?
4.	What claims have been filed?
5.	By whom have claims been filed?
6.	Has the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company any property of any nature in that district?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Return tabled herewith.



PREFERENCE TO CANADIANS IN CIVIL SERVICE OF ALLIED COUNTRIES

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Referring to sessional paper No. 120A (reference No. 43), tabled February 15, did the Department of the Secretary of State ask the Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs "whether the dominion government ever tried to know if any allied countries of His Majesty during the great war had accorded a preference to Canadian candidates in their civil service, and, if so, when*'?
2.	If so, when?
3.	Did the Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs answrer that question?
4.	If so, wrhat was the answer, and wrhy was not such answer included in the above-mentioned return?
5.	If not, why?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled herewith.

Motions for Papers



LIEUT .-COLONEL W. ARTHUR STEEL

Jean-François Pouliot: Referring to the statement of the government at page 758 of Revised Hansard of March 4, 1936, that Lieutenant-Colonel W. Arthur Steel's pension would have been $1,975.38 per annum as of 1st April, 1936, if he were sent back to the Department of National Defence before being retired, or $3,520 per annum as of 1st April, 1936, if retired while still seconded by the Department of National Defence to the radio broadcasting commission, although there was no statutory provision for the superannuation of members of said commission,-
1.	Was he retired as radio commissioner?
2.	If so, when, and was he still seconded at that time?
3.	If so, what total amount did he pay for his superannuation from the date of his appointment as radio commissioner, October 1, 1931, until his retirement?
4.	How much does he receive per annum from the date of his superannuation?
5.	Is he the same Lieutenant-Colonel Steel as the one of which the government has said at page 1052 of Unrevised Hansard of February 17 of this year, that he had not been granted a bonus, an extension of salary payment, or any kind of gratuity?
6.	If so, what is his age?
7.	If not, what service did each of both Lieutenant-Colonels Steel render to the Dominion of Canada, and in what capacity?
8.	In case of the death of the former, how much will his family receive per annum?



MAJOR GENERAL A. G. L. MCNAUGHTON

Jean-François Pouliot: Referring to the statement of the government at page 759 of revised Hansard of March
4.	1936, that Maior General A. G. L. Me-Naughton's, C B.. C.M.G., D.S.O., M.Sc.. LL.D.. pension as ex-chief of the general staff would have been $4,800 per annum, as of July 4. 1936. if he were sent back to the Department of National Defence before being retired, or $9,000 per annum, as of July 4, 1942, if retired while still seconded by the Department of National Defence to the National Research Council as president of such council, although there was no statutory provision for a pension to be paid to the president of the National Research Council,-
1.	Is he still seconded by the Department of National Defence to the National Research Council?
2.	If not, was he sent back to the Department of National Defence, and when, and in what capacity?
3.	If so, why, and what is his present salary?
4.	What total amount will he have to pay for his superannuation from the date of his appointment to the National Research Council, June 1, 1935, until the date of his superannuation, July 4, 1942?
5.	What will be the total of his salary as president of the National Research Council during that period of seven years, one month and three days?
6.	What is his age?
7.	If he is not sent back to the Department of National Defence before July 4, 1942, what will be the total amount of his superannuation per annum?
8.	In case of his death on or after that date, how much will his family receive per annum ?



PREMIUM ON CANADIAN DOLLAR IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS IN UNITED STATES

Jean-François Pouliot: What premiums were paid yearly to United States from 1930 to 1935 inclusive, when Canada's dollar was at a discount and her debts had to be met in gold in New York?



CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES

Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: 1.	How many civil servants receive a salary of less than $1,000: (a) in the inside service; (b) in the outside service?
2.	What number of civil servants receive a
salary of between $1,000 and $2,000:	(a) in
the inside service; (b) in the outside service?
3.	What number of civil servants receive a salary over $2,000, grouping them by grades of $1,000 until the maximum salary is reached: (a) in the inside service; (b) in the outside service?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I suggest that this question be passed as an order for return, with a reservation as to the possibility of supplying in its entirety the information asked for.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MacMILLAN:: For a copy of: (a) correspondence exchanged between the provincial government of Saskatchewan and the Prime Minister of Canada regarding a resolution passed by the Saskatchewan legislature on February 27, 1936, in favour of a resumption of British family settlement in Canada: (b) correspondence exchanged between the Premier of Saskatchewan, or the provincial government of Saskatchewan, and the Prime Minister of Canada regarding resolutions in favour of an early resumption of British family settlement in Saskatchewan, passed by the Saskatchewan immigration and settlement convention, held at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on September 23 and 24, 1936.



VETERANS' ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria, B.C.):: I should like to inquire of the government when the report of the veterans' assistance commission will be laid on the table?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister is not in his seat at the moment, but I shall direct his attention to my hon. friend's question.

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 2, consideration of the motion of Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Bennett.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) reads as follows:
This house regrets that the government has failed to take effective measures to deal with the problem of unemployment.
We in this corner of the chamber will support that resolution. In fact, had the leader of the opposition not moved his amendment, we would have moved one along those lines.
It would seem that the attitude of hon. members toward this great question of unemployment is to no small extent determined by the place in which they sit in this house. It was not so very long ago that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) moved a similar amendment. In 1935 he moved the following amendment to the motion to go into supply:
This house regrets that, notwithstanding the specific promises made prior to the election of 1930, and many times since reiterated, and despite the fact that extraordinary powers to deal with unemployment have been repeatedly secured from parliament, the present administration, after nearly five years of office, has not yet submitted to parliament any definite or effective policy to deal with widespread actual unemployment or distress which continues to be Canada's most urgent national problem.
At that time we supported the amendment, and if the Minister of National Defence moved a similar amendment to-day we would give it similar support. But he has not moved it, and so far as we can learn, the government, of which he is a member, has taken no action to deal effectively with this great problem, which he then stated-with which statement I agree-was Canada's most urgent national problem.
Not only did the present Minister of National Defence take that position, but I find that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was also very anxious to have this problem dealt with promptly. On February 5, 1935, he moved:
That this house is of the opinion that when it is moved into committee of supply priority should be given consideration of the estimates

of the Department of Labour in order that opportunity may be afforded for an immediate discussion and consideration of conditions of unemployment and distress at present existing in all parts of Canada, and of the measures required to cope therewith.
The present government has been in office for well on to two years-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: A year and a half.


Mr. DUNNING:: Sixteen months.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The present government has been in office for sixteen months; we are now in the second session, and nothing has been done to cope effectively with the problem of unemployment. The Prime Minister is reported in Hansard on February 12, 1935, as follows:
In the House of Commons on April 29, 1931, at page 1113 of Hansard I am reported as follows:
"As unemployment is incidental to industry as it is carried on to-day, I believe some system of insurance against unemployment is absolutely necessary and should be provided."
That was in 1931. Then on the next page:
"*-having regard to the problem of unemployment before us at the moment, a problem that we know is going to recur from time to time, the government should immediately consider how a system of unemployment insurance can be made applicable to meet such a situation."
That was not sixteen months ago; it was in 1935, and the right hon. gentleman was referring to the attitude of the Liberal party in 1931. Proceeding to discuss certain constitutional difficulties, he said:
There is an opportunity for an immediate step to be taken by the federal government to provide a measure of unemployment insurance. No question of constitutionality can be raised with respect to it.
If there is an immediate step that can be taken without incurring any constitutional objections, I wonder why the Prime Minister has not taken it, or has not indicated in any way that his government proposes to take it. Thus we see, Mr. Speaker, that when the Liberals were in power before, we had to join with the Conservatives in urging that something be done about the then increasing problem of unemployment. The Conservatives were put in power pledged to deal with this very problem, and then we in this corner found ourselves allied with the Liberals and gladly supporting any motion they brought forward urging action with regard to it. Again the government has changed, and to-day we find ourselves backing a Conservative motion.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that throughout all these years the situation has not changed

The Budget

Mr. Woodsworth
fundamentally. Only a few months ago the Canadian Welfare Council issued a statement on the relief outlook in Canada. I suppose most hon,. members were supplied with this pamphlet, and I. wish to read a few significant paragraphs. It is a document which was prepared by a non-partisan organization and one that cannot, I think, be said to be in opposition to government policies. After reviewing the situation province by province, this statement is made in connection with the drought situation in the west:
The western tragedy has affected relief loads in all the western cities sending them high again, though Winnipeg, because of the transfer of heads of families from direct relief to relief works, has not moved sharply upward as might otherwise have been anticipated.
I would ask the house to note this statement :
As it is. quite apart from drought relief, the loads look as if they would stand (as at the first of December) at a figure representing 6 per cent to 8 per cent increase over comparable 1935 totals. As dependency grows in the western drought areas an even heavier increase may be expected. In fact, were all those now aided through special works projects, farm placement, etc., included, the number of persons receiving assistance, directly or indirectly, may even rise to a figure as high as 12 per cent above last year's totals at this time.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Unofficially estimated.


James Shaver Woodsworth: An unofficial estimate; quite so.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And incorrect.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then it is very strange, if this estimate is so incorrect, that one who I believe was very largely responsible for making the statement should be borrowed by the government to help carry on the work of the unemployment commission. Here is another statement made by the one guilty of such great inaccuracy:
Though relief scales in numerous municipalities in Canada bear no relationship to minimum subsistence needs, others, especially in the larger centres, while admittedly conforming with minimum standards only, exceed, for the man with more than three or four children, full time or average earnings when employed at prevailing rates in unskilled and semiskilled pursuits.
That is just a little sidelight on the low wages and low standard of living prevailing in Canada. Apparently official bodies fear to give a decent dole, fear to give adequate relief, because the relief granted, small as it is, might approximate the wages that are paid semi-skilled and unskilled workers in their ordinary vocations.
One more passage, in which reference is made to special problems:
The homeless man who is not absorbed in farm placement or in heavy manual work projects because of unsuitability, age or handicap; the aimless, restless youth who has never known employment or sees no hope in temporary occupation or "made" work; the increasing number of displaced, older single women; the growing problem of the non-resident individual or family shoved from municipal pillar to provincial post and back to emergency relief or private charity; and the mounting percentage of burned out war veterans seeking something to eke out the veterans allowance.
I quote one more paragraph:
Relief costs not only are not decreasing but increasing as persons long without income, whether on relief or idle, face complete depletion of their resources and seek the meeting of their needs from social assistance. Also, as economic dislocation continues, families of younger workers and therefore smaller in numbers come on the relief lists, and this smaller average number in each household tends to raise both the average and per capita costs. An upward movement in the costs of some foods is directly affecting relief costs, while the need for medical and health care for thousands on relief is forcing municipality after municipality to some experiment in providing such services at public cost. State medicine looms on the horizon as a problem that is no longer academic.
These extracts-and they come from an impartial source and one that has been quite close to the problem across the country- give some indication that fundamentally the problem as we face it to-day does not differ from the problem as it has presented itself in past months and past years.
Take my own city of Winnipeg, in which of course I have a very special interest. A series of articles on the relief situation appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press in the latter part of November. The articles were based on interviews with those in charge of the giving of relief. I quote:
According to Alderman Paul Bardal, chairman of the civic unemployment relief committee, there have been exactly 24,511 families in receipt of relief from the city since the dawn of the depression.
Again:
Forty per cent of the people of Winnipeg have been on relief at one time or another during the past seven years.
Still further:
The largest body are the common labourers, of which there are 1,636 on family relief. There are 883 office and mercantile workers, 865 skilled construction workers, 711 formerly engaged in transportation and communications, 523 from manufacturing industries, 221 domestic and related services, 74 professional men, 57 from farms and dairies, 25 from mining, logging and fishing, 8 policemen, 2 firemen, and 89 who have never worked at any regular job.
The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

Such a great variety of occupations are represented by those on relief as to suggest the diversity as well as the extent of the problem. I would suggest that the schemes which have been outlined to us this year or which were undertaken last year by the government simply do not touch the major number of the classes to which I have just referred.
In these family cases a very serious situation is developing. I can remember the time in my own city when it was considered almost necessary for each family to have a little house of its own, but to-day we find large numbers of houses of six or eight rooms converted into apartment houses to house from five to six or eight families. It has become almost the rule that families are placed in one or at most two rooms. I think any hon. member will recognize that we are thereby building up slums of a very serious kind. The relief departments say that they cannot help this, that they must keep down the rents and can afford only so much for the relief budget, but that does not prevent the development of a very bad state of things in houses which are so overcrowded as these. One has but to step into a police court, or, perhaps better, into juvenile court, to observe the results of the long continued unemployment which the country has experienced,-fathers discouraged, loafing around the streets; mothers dragged out, not knowing what next to do; boys and girls with no regular work, though they are out of school. Utter demoralization is coming to the homes of many of our people. It is a condition which we must face, and I think it is not taking advantage in any way of our position in the opposition to hold the government responsible for dealing with this problem.
I was disappointed in one statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in one of his earlier speeches. Speaking on January 21, he said:
Moreover, sir. I still believe in the virtue of thrift, I still believe that a man in the full flush of his manhood has not merely the right but the duty to himself and to those who depend upon him to set aside in any manner which seems good to him a portion of the proceeds of his labour to-day in order that he and those dependent upon him may not later be dependent upon the state.
Of course we would all agree with a general sentiment of that kind, but the fact is that for years past tens of thousands of heads of families have not been able to provide even for the current expenditures which their families require, and when the depression came they found themselves, as we put it, right up against it. Thrift? It is fine to

talk about thrift when there are opportunities of exercising it, but the fact is that a great many to-day have no such opportunity; they are dependent upon others for jobs, and if the others are not providing jobs they are helpless. I would commend to the notice of the Minister of Finance some observations by Oscar Wilde:
Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town or country labourer to practice thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly-fed animal. He should decline to live like that, and should either steal, or go on the rates, which is considered by many to be a form of stealing. As for begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg. No. a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented and rebellious is probably a real personality, and has much in him. He is at any rate a healthy protest.
I think we have to remember

*


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely my hon. friend will do me the justice to admit that on that occasion I was not speaking of the poor or of those on relief, but was advocating that those who had saved should not be deprived of their savings.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know whether it is worth while to quote the preceding remarks of the hon. gentleman.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I wonderl


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall do so if it is desired.


Mr. JACOBS:: In the interests of truth.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is the preceding paragraph:
I have little more to say, Mr. Speaker. All history teaches us the appeal which proposals of this kind have to the ears of men and w-omen who are experiencing great hardship. There never has been in any modern country a time of hardship which did not have as a part of its phenomena a development of so-called monetary reform which always received for a time in all countries very wide support. In some countries the effort was made, with results that are written large on the pages of history, results which drove the common people of those countries further into the mire than they were ever driven by any depression. In other countries, notably the great republic to the south, the agitation for monetary inflation lasted in various forms for a long period of years. It was never successful. 1 would not use the term "monetary reform" because I do not regard inflation as monetary reform. I regard uncontrolled inflation as the worst kind of monetary reaction. It is destructive.
Then came the paragraph to which I alluded.

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth


Charles Avery Dunning: That is quite right.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But that paragraph does show acceptance of things as they are. It suggests that those who have succeeded in making money should be able to hold on to it, quite regardless of the conditions round about, and it entirely ignores the fact that for the last seven years large numbers of people have not been able to lay up anything for the future, in fact have not been able to meet their present obligations. I have often thought of the words of Edwin Markham, " the long, long patience of the plundered poor." To-day those who are described and treated as near-criminals are essentially " the plundered poor." The various and arbitrary arrangements of society deprive a great many of them of the chance to earn a decent livelihood.
Last Christmas season the front pages of our newspapers were filled with stories of the destitution which prevailed in nearly all our cities. The Red Cross and relief agencies of all kinds were making appeals; there were stories of dire need. On the other hand, within a week or two afterwards the press was filled with stories of greatly improved business. The bankers' association and individual banks issued statements along these lines. Hidden profits of the textile industry were disclosed. Talk about stealing! The man who steals a loaf of bread, even the man who makes relief a racket in order to get a little more for his family which is inadequately clothed or fed, is in my judgment nothing like so great a thief as he who evades taxation and puts away profits out of which he should have contributed more largely to government revenues. The other day the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) deprecated the use of the slogan, "soak the rich." I do not know that it is a very good slogan, but I would point out that the present practice is to "soak the poor." It has been done very effectively over a long period of years. Surely the time has come when we should adopt a different attitude. I invite the attention of the house to the principles of a program that was placed a few weeks ago before congress by the President of the United States. They are contained in a front page editorial in the Halifax Herald, and it seems to me highly significant that a newspaper of that stamp should emphasize declarations of this kind:
1.	We must find practical controls over blind economic forces and blindly selfish men.
2.	As intricacies of human relationships increase, so power to govern them also must increase-power to stop evil; power to do good.
3.	We have always known that heedless selfinterest was bad morals; we now know that it is bad economics.
(4)	We are beginning to abandon our tolerance of the abuse of power by those who betray for profit the elementary decencies of life.
(5)	The lowest standard of living can be raised far above the level of mere subsistence.
(6)	The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much: it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
That latter clause I should like especially to urge upon the house. The Prime Minister will probably rise and point to the constitutional difficulties, but surely we have gone far enough and long enough with the employment question to recognize that essentially it is a matter of national emergency. If we had a few thousand people left destitute by a great flood there is no doubt whatever that the spectacular character of the appeal would lead to millions being poured forth in order to succour those people. The trouble is that we have had this problem of unemployment with us so long that we have forgotten its seriousness.
How have these constitutional difficulties worked out? The dominion says that under the British North America Act this is primarily a provincial problem; and the provinces take the position that since they themselves are in a bad way financially the matter becomes primarily one for the municipalities. The municipalities in the west are almost bankrupt and therefore cannot cope with the problem. It has been recognized, in the announcement that a commission to study the financial relationship between the dominion and the provinces, that the present set-up is not satisfactory. It seems to me that the announcement of the appointment of that commission is in itself sufficient proof that the provinces are not financially in a position to deal with the situation. That being so, it does seem to me that while commissions are investigating and reporting-and until such time as we can get some modification of the British North America Act-the poor people of Canada, who after all are citizens of Canada, ought not to be allowed to suffer.
Surely I should not have to refer to the position of the Liberal party on this question of unemployment, but in order to refresh their memories I would call attention to a leaflet which was circulated before the last election in which the policies of the Liberal party of Canada in relation to some immediate outstanding problems were set forth. Speeches by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the House of Commons on February 27, 1935, were quoted as follows:
The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

Unemployment of First Concern
The Liberal party believes unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem. It would deal with the present emergency conditions through a representative national commission, which would cooperate with the provinces and municipalities in the administration of unemployment relief and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed.
That is the first section. I ask: Can the Liberal party claim that the present commission is in any real sense a representative national commission? The personnel of that commission was indicated to the house yesterday by the leader of the opposition. Can we say that it is a thoroughgoing representative national commission? I think not. We find, therefore, that that commission is not a body which is devoting all its time to this matter; rather it is simply an advisory commission that reports to the minister. I doubt whether we shall have an opportunity to discuss in detail what that commission is doing. In fact, I do not know whether we shall even have an opportunity to hear a report as to what the commission really proposes. The commission is simply a departmental adjunct. Can this be said to be carrying out the announced policy of the Liberal party? Let me read again:
As permanent measures the Liberal party is pledged to introduce policies which will serve to provide employment by reviving industry and trade;-
They may say that they have done that, but let me quote further:
-and to introduce a national system of unemployment insurance.
"A national system of unemployment insurance." It may be that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice will immediately take the ground that in view of the report of the judicial committee of the privy council the government have not the power to set up a national system of unemployment insurance. They might have known what the result might be of any appeal to the privy council in this regard, but the fact is that prior to making the appeal they decided upon this as one of the fundamental Liberal policies. I know that in the United States this question of state versus federal jurisdiction has been a problem, and we have always considered that residua 1 power was with the individual states. But notwithstanding that, they seem to have been able to put through a large measure of social security. That could be done in Canada; for as I have said again and again in this house, I believe the old saw is true, that where there is a will there is a way. But the present government has not only scrapped, or taken such action as led to the scrapping, of the unemployment insur-

ance measures which were introduced by the previous government, but in addition to that it has failed to indicate in any way whatever that it is about to introduce any system of unemployment insurance which might avoid the constitutional difficulties, or to provide any substitute.
It would not be so bad if we had an adequate system of relief, but such dloes not exist. We are faced with a very serious difficulty in having a Liberal government in power at the present time. In the first place the Prime Minister always resorts to the constitutional difficulties, and if they do not serve then he has recourse to the old laissez faire policy: we must not interfere with private industry, and so on. Between these two it is extremely difficult to get action- and action is what we need in Canada to-day, especially in dealing with unemployment. I want to give- one other clause from the Liberal party's statement of its position prior to the last election:
The Liberal party recognizes that the problem of distribution has become more important than that of production, and believes that personality is more sacred than property. It will devote itself to finding ways and means of effecting a fair and just distribution of wealth, with increasing regard to human need, to the furtherance of social justice, and to the promotion of the common good.
These are lofty sentiments, and it is no doubt the enunciation of these lofty sentiments, coupled with the failure of the previous government to solve the problem of unemployment and other outstanding problems that face our country, that led to the election of the present Liberal government. They may sit back in their seats happy in the thought that they will not be disturbed for several years yet, but I submit that they cannot be relieved of the responsibility of making some effort to carry out the definite pledges which they made to the electorate only two years ago.
In respect to a matter of this kind, since all hon. members individually are anxious to do something to relieve the distress of their fellow citizens, and finding ourselves continually bombarded with pleas for help from people living in the various communities from which we come, surely the time has arrived when we can sink our party differences and get together in a real effort to solve this grave problem. I have said before that from the standpoint of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation we do not think unemployment can be fully cured short of fundamental changes in our economic system. Hon. members opposite believe that it can. They say they have no mandate

The Budget-Mr. Thompson
to bring in socialism. Very well, but surely we can at least all unite in an effort to bring relief to those in distress. As long as many incomes are large, and profits increasing, and there are those in our midst able to live lives of luxury, we have no right to permit any government to claim that there is no money to provide the necessities of life for those in distress.
I cannot close without reminding the house that it is these considerations among others that made us protest the other day against increasing military expenditures. Since the Minister of Finance finds it possible to raise money for matters of that kind, he ought to find; it possible to raise enough to provide adequate food and clothing and shelter and some little hope in life for those who for the past four or five or six years have been suffering the hardships consequent upon unemployment and who do not know what to do next. I urge upon the government that even now it is not too late to make adequate provision for the needs of these people.


Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):: As
I listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) deliver his budget speech in this house I was pleased to know that this country has emerged so far out of the depression. But when he had finished I was thoroughly convinced that any improvement in our economic condition was not due to the policies of the present administration, but rather had taken place in spite of them.
It is greatly to be regretted that at a time, when the country is emerging from a depression, a budget should be presented which strikes such a serious blow at industry and does nothing at all for the agriculturist. The alterations that have been made in the trade agreement with the United Kingdom will to a great degree hurt the manufacturers of this country, and there is no provision in the budget to relieve the dairy farmers of the ever increasing importations of vegetable oils. In 1936, 158,000,000 pounds of these oils were imported into Canada irom countries such as Egypt, China and Manchuria, where labour is very cheap. These oil's cost about cents a pound in the country of origin. They are refined in Canada by a chemical process which costs very little, and tremendous profits are being made from their sale. From these imported oils 81,000,000 pounds of domestic shortening was made and sold last year, and the remainder of the oil was disposed of to the soap factories, thus coming into competition with our butter, lard, and other animal fats.
The Canadian market could quite easily absorb all the butter, lard and tallow produced in Canada. Last year we had an exportable surplus of 10.000,000 pounds of butter, and we exported 20,000,000 pounds of lard. But we made a market in our own country for 81,000,000 pounds of domestic shortening manufactured from cheap oils im-Dorted from foreign countries. This domestic shortening is a greater menace to the dairy farmer than was the sale of oleomargarine which the government saw fit to prohibit. The	United	States	have placeda duty of 4J	cents a	pound	on	imported
vegetable oils, in order to protect their farmers, but the markets of Canada are left as a dumping ground by the present administration. The sale of domestic shortening is depressing the price of butter and lard and thus has a tendency to lower the value of hogs and cattle.
In discussing the budget and the proposed amendment it is well that we should review the results of tariff changes in the past in order that we	may be	better	able	to makewise provision	for the	future.	In	the final
analysis tariffs are nothing more or less than instruments in the hands of governments whereby they may regulate international trade, so that countries with different climatic conditions, higher standards of living and higher rates of wages may be able to compete successfully in their home markets with manufactured goods from countries where climatic conditions are better or where the scale of wages and standard of living are much lower.
Let us go back to 1913. In that year the United States permitted agricultural products from Canada to enter free of duty, thereby giving Canada a much better trade agreement than that contained in the reciprocity pact of 1911, which the people of Canada so definitely rejected at the general election of that year. From 1913 to 1921 Canadian agricultural products entered the United States free of duty. But between 1921 and 1930 the markets of the United States were closed to the Canadian exporter, and during those years a Liberal government was almost constantly in office in Canada. The result of the closing of those markets is readily seen from examination of the trade figures. In 1921 Canada exported to the United States $74,000,000 worth of agricultural products. In 1930 that export trade had fallen to $4,000,000. That was a result of nine years of Liberal administration and this was the condition that existed when the Conservative government came to office in
The Budget-Mr. Thompson

1930; the markets of the world were closed to the Canadian exporter and there was an adverse balance of $100,000,000. The government which came into power in 1930 immediately set to work to secure markets for the Canadian exporter. Treaties were signed with several countries; the empire trade agreement signed in Ottawa in 1932 gave Canada for the first time in her history a preference in the British market. Ever since confederation successive governments have endeavoured to secure a preference in the British market for the Canadian exporter, but they failed, despite the fact that for many years Canada had given the mother country a preference in this market for certain commodities. The trade agreement signed at Ottawa in 1932 will go down in history as one of the great achievements of the Canadian people; it will rank with confederation and the building of the Canadian Pacific railway.
Every major development in Canada has been engineered by the Conservative party. Whatever little assistance the Liberal party gave Sir John A. Macdonald at confederation, we know the bitterness with which they opposed the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. We know that members of that party stated on the floor of the house that it would never pay for the grease on the wheels, yet it has developed into the greatest transportation system in the civilized world. Hon. members who were in the house in 1932 will recall how bitterly the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) opposed the empire trade agreements and he stated many times that if he were returned to power he would repeal them. True, to some extent he has weakened them, but he dare not repeal them.
Reduction of tariffs does not necessarily mean cheaper goods for the consumer, but it does mean lower wages to the worker and very often higher costs to the consumer. In 1897 a Liberal administration placed binder twine upon the free list with the result that about twenty small factories in Canada which were manufacturing binder twine were forced to close down. Up went the price of binder twine. Last year this administration drastically reduced the tariffs on farm implements and furniture. Up went the price of farm implements, and to-day furniture is selling in Canada at a price higher than it was a year ago. Higher prices are the logical result of curtailed volume of business; there must always be a greater profit on a smaller turnover. The former government made an agreement with the implement manufacturers *,hat prices were not to be raised to the

farmers, on the condition that the manufacturers were to be protected in their home market. To that agreement the manufacturers adhered.
When a man buys an article in a foreign country he is sending his money to pay foreign labourers and to build the foreign institutions. When he buys an article manufactured in Canada he spends his money to pay Canadian labour and to build up Canadian homes. I think hon. members will agree it is the duty of the head of every household to see that those dependent upon him are properly housed, fed and clothed. I believe this government is making an honest endeavour to better housing conditions in Canada. We are producing a surplus of every kind of food which can be grown profitably in Canada, but what about clothing ourselves? Half of our people are walking about to-day clothed in garments imported from foreign countries. If we had succeeded in clothing ourselves to the extent we have succeeded in feeding ourselves there would not be an idle man or woman in Canada. Moreover we could give employment to thousands of men and women who would be pleased to make Canada the land of their adoption.
Industry must take up the slack in employment, and in doing so it will be creating markets for agriculturists. It has frequently been argued that goods should be manufactured in countries which either possess or have easy access to the raw material, but I suggest that is not so. For instance, let us consider the silk and tin industries of the United States. Not a pound of raw silk or a pound of tin is produced in any state of the union, yet in the manufacture of these commodities they have built up some of the largest industries in the world. That has been done by placing heavy duties upon manufactured articles and permitting the raw material to enter free of duty.
To talk about lower tariffs and free trade at this time is just as foolish as to talk about disarmament when the whole world is an armed camp. Even Great Britain, which until a few years ago made the proud boast that her ports were open to the commerce of the world, was forced to protect her industries and throw to the winds the moth-eaten garment of free trade which could no longer protect her citizens.
I regret very much that the government has seen fit to reduce the tariffs on textiles. There are about five hundred textile mills in Canada distributed over 275 municipalities. These mills employ 63,000 workers, almost fifty per cent of whom are women. They have an annual pay-roll of $S4,000,000. The

The Budget-Mr. Thompson
factories which are manufacturing primary textiles are situated in our smaller towns and villages. In addition we have about 2,500 manufacturing establishments known as the secondary textile industry, or the industry engaged in needlecraft. That part of the textile industry employs 116,000 workers and has an annual pay-roll of $90,000,000. The textile industry does not pay as high wages as many of the heavier industries, but the work is steady and during the depression the towns fortunate enough to have textile mills suffered less from unemployment and paid less for relief than was paid in towns and cities where heavier industries were located. This is a cold country, and the woollen industry should be protected against importations from countries with more favourable climatic conditions, and where the standard of living and scale of wages is lower than it is in Canada. Until such time as the Canadian people learn to clothe themselves to the same degree as they have learned to feed themselves, conditions will not greatly improve.
I have before me figures showing average wages paid in textile factories of Great Britain and Canada. They are as follows:
Great Britain	Canada
Girls ..	8-90 cents per hour 20 cents per hour
Women. 14-S3	"	"	24-42	"	"Bovs ..10-38	"	"	20-23	"	"Men ..28-23	"	"	37	"	"
The average wage in Great Britain, apart from wages paid to office and sales staffs, stood at 16-90 cents per hour and 30-19 cents per hour in Canada. In many European countries where textiles are manufactured the rates of wages are as far below those of Great Britain as those of Great Britain are below those of Canada. It is the duty of every government to encourage its people to feed and clothe themselves, not only in their own economic interests but also in order that in time of war they may not be cut off from their supplies.
In 1930 the tariff rate on textiles was materially increased, and in the years that followed there was a marked reduction in the price of textiles to the consumer. During the depression the textile industry proved to be the salvation of eastern Canada. At a time when many of the heavier industries were closing down or reducing their staffs, between 1930 and 1935, the textile industry increased the number of employees by twenty per cent. Had this industry not received the increased protection given in 1930, many of the mills could not have survived the depression and thousands of their employees would have been forced on relief.
The textile industry of Canada uses annually $8,000,000 worth of chemicals, dyes, oils and soaps, most of which are produced in Canada.
The industry spends $1,500,000 for the manufacture of packing boxes and $3,000,000 for the purchase of electric power and it is estimated that for every ton of manufactured goods shipped out of a textile mill, thirteen tons of coal, raw materials, supplies of one kind and another and machinery go into the mill. This means a double haul for our railroads. When we buy imported goods, the railroads haul only the finished product, which is just one ton in every thirteen.
Eighty-five per cent of the capital invested in the woollen and knit goods industry in Canada is Canadian, the other fifteen per cent being divided between Great Britain, France and the United States. The textile industry is one of the oldest in Canada and deserves well of the Canadian government because it has played an important part in the development of this country. The economic and social life in many of our towns and villages is dependent upon the local textile mill. Not only do these mills give employment to many heads of families, but they employ large numbers of girls from the time they leave school until they are married. If these girls were not employed they would be charges upon their respective families.
I am at a loss to understand the attitude of many of our western members toward the tariff protection afforded the industries of eastern Canada. The western provinces are constantly coming to the federal government asking for assistance, which assistance must be paid for largely by the industries they seek to destroy. I am sure every one sympathizes with the western provinces in their present distress, and it is only right and proper that the federal government should come to their aid. Their present state has been brought about by circumstances over which they have had no control, the successive failure of their crops. However more new wealth has been produced by these western provinces in the last fifty years than by any other part of Canada. If that wealth had been properly handled it would have been sufficient to tide them over any ordinary difficulty.
Ontario and Quebec, where the great majority of these protected industries are located, pay seventy-five per cent of the taxes collected in Canada. I ask this house: How long are Ontario and Quebec going to remain a pair of placid milch cows to be stripped dry to pay the bills of provincial governments over whose expenditure they have no control? I have always been opposed to one government taxing the people and then passing the money over to another government or to some other body to spend. The govern-
The Budget-Mr. Thompson

ment that taxes the people should be responsible to the people for the expenditure of the money. In all fairness I say it is high time that these western provinces were told quite frankly that they must put their own houses in order to balance their budgets and live within their means.
The farmer and the manufacturer should not be flying at each other's throats. They are partners in the development of this country. The prosperity of the farmer and the prosperity of the industrialist are inseparably bound together. The farmers best market is the men and women employed in industry. After all, the textile industry is a creation of the Canadian government. There would have been no textile industry in Canada had it not been for the encouragement and the protection given by successive governments. Surely this is an inopportune time to curtail the activities of this industry in any degree when all classes of our people should be earnestly united in an honest effort to cure our economic ills, of which unemployment is the chief.
Investigations into the textile industry have shown certain unethical practices on the part of the silk and cotton industries, but nothing has been laid to the charge of the woollen industry. We find in the budget that the silk and cotton industries have received the minimum reduction, while the woollen industry is practically crippled. Can this be because the silk and cotton industries have behind them the money barons of this country, while the woollen industry is mostly privately owned, the mills being scattered throughout the small towns and villages? Whatever may be the cause, the budget has not 'treated the woollen industry with common British justice.
Under the old tariff Great Britain had forty per cent of the textile market in Canada. The manufacturers in Great Britain are jubilant because they have prospects of dominating the Canadian market under the provisions of this new agreement. Many of our textile men are discouraged. A manager of a large textile mill told me this week that when protection was given in 1930 he thought that Canada wanted her textiles manufactured in Canada. He came over from England and made large investments. They employed a large number of Canadians and spent considerable money, but he told me that if they could get nearly the amount they had invested, they would go back to England. He seemed to think that Canada had decided that she wanted her textiles manufactured in Great Britain. That is the spirit dominating

our textile business to-day. It is a great pity, because it is one of the finest and oldest industries in Canada.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, I shall confine my remarks at this time to the subject matter of the amendment. This question of unemployment has been threshed out for years on the floor of this house and we are no closer to-day to a solution than we were seven or eight years ago. I believe the reason for that is that the problem has constantly been regarded as a temporary one. I am convinced that the problem of unemployment is a permanent one, and that unemployment will gradually increase as the years go by. If it had not been for the dictators of forced labour creating another war scare, unemployment in Canada to-day would be just as bad as, if not worse than, it ever was. I believe the reason why we are not making any progress in solving this problem of unemployment is chiefly because we cannot agree, to begin with, on fundamentals. We start off on false premises. The first thing we have to settle is this: What is the object of the economic system? Is it to provide goods and services, or is it to provide jobs? Judging by the remarks of those who support the orthodox point of view, the purpose of an economic system is to provide jobs. But speaking from the point of view of the new economics, I maintain that the purpose of an economic system is not to provide jobs but to provide a maximum amount of goods and services with a minimum amount of work and trouble. Because of the increasing use of solar energy on such a vast scale as we see to-day, human energy is almost unnecessary.
The remarks of a goodly number of the members of this house would lead one to believe that the machine has practically nothing to do with the unemployment situation. They would lead us to believe that unemployment is due to some maladjustment of trade or to tariffs and so forth. I should like to put on Hansard a few facts to show that the reason why our people have not jobs to-day is because the machine has taken their place. There have already been placed on Hansard a considerable number of statistics to illustrate this fact, but I think hon. members are inclined to forget them; therefore I want to place on the record a few figures to show that it is a physical impossibility to employ our people in industry to-day to such an extent that they will be able to earn enough income to buy the products of industry.
I quote from a pamphlet entitled " For All Things Are Yours," by Clive Kenrick. These are the statements he makes as to the

The Budget-Mr. Kuhl
extent to which machines have taken away the jobs of men and women, along with their pay envelopes:
In the Chevrolet foundry, Saginaw, United States of America, output advanced 290 percent in ten years, but they eliminated 13,872 men and increased the output 54 times per square foot of floor area.
The London Brick Company have an excavator controlled by one man electrically, excavating 30,000 tons of clay per week.
At Corby, Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds are moving ten tons per minute with a super Hercules excavator 100 feet. . . .
The core-blowing machine using compressed air has made 200 cores an hour with unskilled labour instead of 80 per day by a skilled man. . . .
In the steel and iron trade we are now doing with one ton of coal what a few years ago took three tons.
President Roosevelt's N.I.R.A. committee on the automobile trades reports, among many other marvellous increases of efficiency, that in 1930, 250 men finished 100 motor blocks in unit time. Now in 1935, 19 men finish 250 blocks in the same time. Six years ago, 3 skilled machinists could do a job, requiring accuracy with -0005 of an inch; now one unskilled man does it.
Welding machines now enable three men to do what 18 did six years ago. . . .
The first automatic factory appeared in the United States of America in 1915, and since 1920 they became more common. At Baton Rouge an oil refinery plant was modernized, displacing 1,000 men, and the whole control brought into the office for a few men to control by push buttons.
Continuing, - he says:
To-day we have the totally automatic in traffic regulation; the telephone; gas manufacture; pumping controlled by the pressure in the mains; gas lighting; electric lighting by clockwork; thermostatic control of all heating, whether hot-water, gas or electric. The electric eye can be used for a thousand and one different objects and do practically anything that a man can do: keeping the feed water level in a boiler; start and stop machinery; sort articles at 90 a minute; automatically control the size of articles on a grinding machine; soften water to the correct degree; count the number of microbes in a culture; select colours; see through smoke; and with remote electric control, aeroplanes, submarines, etc., can be directed; and if we liked we could plough, cultivate and harvest our wheat by the same methods.
That applies not only to the industrial plants of nations, for the same thing is true of agriculture. With reference to agriculture the same writer says:
Now we have motor ploughs and combine harvesters. The ploughing and harvesting of wheat is carried on with only one man to more than a thousand acres. On a 907-acre farm in Norfolk, now it is fully mechanized, four men are employed instead of forty. In the Yale of Evesham in market gardening where ten men were employed on 20 acres, since the Rototiller was used only six are required.
Also he has something to say with respect to the poultry industry of to-day. Twenty-31111-92
five years ago hens laid seventy-two eggs a year; now they lay one hundred or over, a forty per cent increase, and the good poultryman expects two hundred eggs per bird. To-day there are cows, British Frie-sians, giving ten gallons of milk per day. A young bullock of eighteen months is now ready for market; it does not take three years. Rothansted's experimental station states that in 1852 sixty-five men were required to complete the harvesting of an eleven-acre field of wheat in one day; now only four men are required. In 1934 England had more acres cultivated than in 1933 and raised more produce, but employed 27,000 less men. Reports upon the mechanization of agriculture show to what extent the machine has displaced man, making it increasingly difficult for labour to find work on the farms. We know that about 225 bushels of maize can be and have been raised per acre. The highest yields obtained by the Indiana corn growers' association have risen between 1914 and 1933 from 100 bushels to 165 bushels per acre. This yield is increasing at the rate of 24 bushels a year. If all the progressive farmers in Indiana continue as at present until they get a yield of 200 bushels, the 180,000 farmers who in 1930 farmed four and a half million acres will shrink to 23,400 farmers farming just over half a million acres, or a deflation of 86 per cent.
A few more facts with regard to agriculture. In cane sugar production on the Kil-auea plantation in Hawaii the sugar crop was increased between 1922 and 1932 by 116 per cent with 12 per cent less labour. Now, after eighty years' striving, a cotton-picking machine has been perfected. This machine is simplicity itself and does in 74 hours the work that a labourer does in eleven weeks. It will liberate ninety-five per cent or more of the negro labourers. One last fact with regard to agriculture. From the evidence of what has already been done, we know that a balanced diet for the seven million inhabitants of New York city can be grown on 309 square miles, that is on an area equal to that of the city itself, and that this can be done by 6,500 labourers, or less than one man per one thousand inhabitants. It is easy to see, then, that we are on the verge of a revolution in agricultural technique. It depends upon how we behave whether we have in the agro-biological and the power machine age a pair of devils to curse or a pair of fairy godmothers to bless mankind.
In the face of these facts, I should like to ask hon. members how can any government, any commission or any individual ever hope

The Budget-Mr. Kuhl

to employ all the unemployed in industry? It is just hoping against hope; it is a physical and a mathematical impossibility. Not only is it physically impossible, but it is also undesirable. Last evening the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) suggested that there was reason to be alarmed over the fact that the vegetable kingdom would displace the animal kingdom in the near future. I should like to place on Hansard a little more information on that point, not to indicate that the fact referred to by the hon. member is anything to be alarmed about, but to show the immense strides that are being made in technological work in this country and the world at large. It will not be long before manual labour in the production of the articles necessary to keep the bodies and souls of our people together will be almost entirely unnecessary. I have here an article which describes the experiments which a California university professor has carried out in the attempt to farm without soil. The hon. member for Danforth suggested the possibility that farmers would not need to raise cows because of the substitution of vegetable fats for animal fats. According to this article, farmers will be able likewise in the future to farm without soil. It is only because I believe that this advance in the realm of agriculture is of such vital importance and will play a very important part in agriculture in the future that I put this article on Hansard. It reveals the enormous possibilities of the immediate future. It is an article which appeared in the Sunday Mirror magazine on September 20, 1936, and is entitled: "Farming without soil. Monster plants, huge harvests, no crop failures or pests. It's all the work of a California wizard who is showing farmers how to get along without farms and bringing city-folk a new era of abundance." The article reads as follows:
If you've never seen a tomato plant twenty-five feet high, loaded with great crimson tomatoes, and bearing a seasonal yield of fourteen pounds per square foot of ground-
Or a tobacco plant as large as a tree; a tobacco plant 22 feet high, with giant leaves which would make several cigars apiece-
Or corn so tall that you would need a step-ladder to get up to where the ears grow and almost need a derrick to lower those ears to the ground-
Or giant roses half a foot across, but each bloom fragile and perfect; dahlias as big as your head, if your head's that big; potatoes of perfect size and shape running 2,500 bushels per acre-
Why, if you haven't seen any of these things, and aren't inclined to believe in their existence, hop the next plane to California and inform yourself on the strangest thing in technological improvement that has ever been developed in the whole history of farming-namely, soilless agriculture.
IMr. Kuhl.]
Soil-less agriculture is the invention. And the revolution is here. What it will do, how far it will go, in its effect not only upon plant growing and farming, but upon human life and the whole economic set-up of tomorrow's world, it staggers the imagination to guess.
When first heard of a couple of years ago, soil-less agriculture was only an experimental stunt. This summer it has arrived. Nurserymen in California are using it to grow young plants for commercial sale, and already it has revolutionized the nursery branch of the farming and floral industries.
Far-sighted economists well may tremble at the prospect. Soil-less agriculture can end scarcity forever. It can turn the cities into farms. It can also compel almost every farm in the United States to be abandoned as an outdated, old-fashioned, inefficient thing.
Soil-less agriculture is the invention of a genial, retiring, rather elderly college professor at the University of California in Berkeley, California: Doctor W. F. Gericke of the Department of Agriculture. Doctor Gericke's amazing invention makes land unnecessary.
Doctor Gericke doesn't even like to talk about the terrific thing he lias worked out. He does say anybody can do it if its done right, and he issues a word of warning not to ask him questions about it at this time, by mail or otherwise, because his early experiments are in the final testing stage. When his formulae are fully complete and fool-proof, he intends to release them to the world for general use. If this scientist didn't feel humanitarian about it, he could probably become food king of the world!
But what he does tell you and show you is suprisingly simple. Soil, when you come to think of it, is good for only three things. It holds a plant erect and keeps it warm; and it supplies the needed chemicals to its roots. Those chemicals, as most people know are mainly forms of nitrogen, potash, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and small amounts of iron, copper, aluminum, etc.
If a man thrives on scientific diet, why can't a plant? That was Doctor Gericke's starting point.
So he has a simple arrangement of trays which are shallow tanks. They are eight inches deep, thirty inches wide and around twenty feet long. They are mounted on hurdles so you don't have to stoop. They are either in greenhouses or outdoors; those in greenhouses, naturally, can be more fully controlled as to temperature, pests, pollenation and lighting.
Water is in those tanks, filling them, and in the water is a bottle containing a mixture of soil chemicals. The different mixes for different plants are, so far, the secret of Doctor Gericke and the nurserymen who are -working with him. The bottle is uncorked and the stuff dissolves gradually.
The tanks are covered with chicken wire, right at the surface of the water. On the chicken wire is piled several inches of packed straw, sawdust, shavings, excelsior. Moisture creeps up into it from below as into the wick of a lamp. Seeds are planted in that fibrous pack, germinate there, the roots reach down into the water and drink their fill. The plant grows-and how!-and the sawdust holds it upright and keeps the roots warm. The water, too, may be warmed by electric heaters, if necessary; and artificial sunlight may beat down day or night.

The Budget-Mr. Kuhl
In regular soil, a plant has to do a lot of work hunting for its nourishment and the whole process is chancy. This work and those chances being eliminated, along with such little items as the "damping off" fungus, drought, frost, insects, blights, summer and winter, and even night and day!
Doctor Gericke has raised potatoes, beets, carrots, lettuce, and all other ground crops. His potato yield ran 2,560 bushels per acre. A normal yield is 116 bushels.
His colossal tomato vines, three stories high, have yielded 352 pounds of ripe, superior fruit per 25 square feet of tank space. That is 236 tons to the acre; a normal yield is five tons!
Doctor Gericke's tobacco crop would make the South look sick; his corn crop is a joke on the Middle West. His Gladiolus plants grow nearly five feet high. And everything else is in proportion. One wonders-why conserve soil? And will rural America ultimately be of value only for bridle trails and golf courses?
I have placed these facts on Hansard to show that what we have to become reconciled to is that the technological advancement of our age has eliminated the necessity for manual labour. Manual labour is almost no longer necessary in industry to-day, and since men are unable to find jobs, since there are no opportunities for work because of the presence of the machine, there is only one way in which men can obtain the wherewithal to purchase the product of the machine and that is through the creation of purchasing power, claims upon wealth, by the government, issued to those who have been eliminated by the machine. I know of no other way in which the problem of unemployment can be solved.
As I have already said, the object of our industrial system is not to provide jobs; it is to provide goods and services. It is therefore the duty of this government to see that there is brought into existence a system of distribution which will equitably distribute the product of the machine amongst the people of the country. There is also a philosophical side to this question, and that, I believe, is what causes more difficulty than anything else in settling the question of unemployment. I cannot understand how hon. members can fail to see that so long as we use the machine it is absolutely impossible physically to find jobs for men in industry.
The problem narrows down philosophically to this question: Is a man who does not work entitled to eat? On first thought a great number would say, no doubt, certainly he is not. What I asked was not, is a man who does not wish to work entitled to eat, but, is the man who does not work entitled to eat? All are agreed, I think, that a man who refuses to work is not entitled to have protection and provision. But to-day our position is such that for many men it is no longer possible to obtain jobs, no matter how 31111-92J
anxious and desirous they may be to do so. Because the machine is the product of ideas which have come down to us through the ages, and all men have inherited these ideas alike, they are all entitled to the product of the machine. And because the machine has taken away their job and their pay envelope they are entitled to the product of the machine even though they do not work. Unless we become reconciled to that fact this house will never solve the problem of unemployment.
There is a great deal to be said about this subject of work and unemployment, and I do not wish to prolong the debate unduly, but it is such an all-important subject that it deserves to be discussed from every point of view. The problem we face in this country to-day is that of educating the people in how to use leisure. When we talk about work we must remember that there are two kinds of work, voluntary labour and involuntary labour. Because of the machine it is no longer necessary for men to be engaged in forced labour, as was the case before the advent of the machine and the power age. Forced labour is at a minimum to-day as far as the production of the necessities and luxuries of life is concerned. To-day the machine has become the slave of man. And because the machine has freed man from forced labour he has spare time on his hands. But the evil of spare time to-day is that it is time for which there is no pay. If the benefits of the machine were equitably distributed it would be possible for all people, poor as well as rich, to have a good proportion of leisure time each day. In fact it has been estimated that if we used the machine to the fullest possible extent and capacity there need be forced labour only for those between the ages of twenty-five and forty-five, and they would need to work only four hours a week. That time would be sufficient for them to produce all necessities as well as luxuries, not only for themselves but for everyone else.
That is the extent to which the machine has taken the place of manual labour to-day. Consequently if the benefits of the machine were equitably distributed everyone should be able to enjoy leisure and a good deal of it. Contrary to the opinion even of many members of parliament, an age of leisure is not a loafer's paradise. Leisure is not synonymous with idleness. Maurice Col'bome says that idleness is the opposite of overwork. Leisure is the opportunity of opportunities for voluntary work. Why do men apply themselves most diligently to their work in the earlier years of their careers? tSimoiv in
The Budget-Mr. Kuhl

order that they may be free from forced activity in their declining years and be able to indulge in voluntary activity such as travel, study, sport, et cetera. The lazy man has never been the problem in history; it has always been the extremely ambitious man, the man who having made his first million wants the next one, the man who wept because there were no more worlds to conquer; these are the men who have been dangerous to society, not the lazy men. Man is born with the creative urge, and is constantly desirious of expressing that instinct in various ways. The sand castle of the child, the boat whittled by the boy, are expressions of tihe desire to create. Men and women find happiness in making home, a garden, or in some other hobby. It is not only an economic law that our present financial system violates, 'but a law of human nature. Our present financial system deliberately destroys the creative urge in man, the God-given power that stamps man with the image of his creator. The incentive which causes men to work to-day is the lowest possible. It is based on money, not on achievement. Man with his high ideals should be ashamed of such an incentive. Why do the ancient civilizations of Babylon, Egypt, Crete, Greece and Rome stand out so prominently in the history of mankind? Simply because, having been freed from all menial tasks by slaves, men had the opportunity of giving full expression to their .creative instinct.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: If I may conclude in one sentence-*


Frederick George Sanderson: With the
unanimous consent of the house.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I should like to have been able to develop the idea of leisure and the enormous possibilities for our people in an age of leisure. 1 trust I shall have that opportunity later.
So far as the question of unemployment is concerned, I do not believe that the present government has taken any adequate steps to deal with it as it should be dealt with. I believe that so long as the present, government or any government in the world insists that the object of an economic system is to find jobs, we shall never solve the unemployment problem. And because I believe that I intend to vote for the amendment.


Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, rising to speak to the amendment introduced yesterday by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett),
JMr. Kuhl.]
I realize that we are discussing a question which, of itself, confronts the people in divers and, at times, insidious ways-the question of unemployment. The amendment itself deals with the question of unemployment, not with that of employment. May I read it?
That all the words after the word "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house regrets that the government has failed to take effective measures to deal with the problem of unemployment."
Mr. Speaker, I postulate right here that there is not a member of the house, regardless of whether he be a member of the government or not, but who can vote for this amendment. Measures may have been tried by the government, and steps may have been taken, but there is not a man in t'he house who, if he looks squarely at the figures and faces the facts of unemployment, can say that these measures have been effective. No effective measures have been taken to deal with the problem of unemployment.
Let us look at the record. The figures I shall use are compiled by the bureau of statistics. In May, 1931, there were 440.000 unemployed in Canada; in February, 1933, there were 713,000; in February, 1934, there were 584,000; in February, 1935, there were 552,000, and in October of 1935, when those who were propounding the "great principles of Liberalism" were sounding their clarion call from coast to coast, and referring in no uncertain terms to conditions in Canada as they saw them, there were 435,000 unemployed. Then, in December, 1936, there were 502,000 unemployed and in January, 1937, 500,000.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Has the hon. member the
figures for January, 1936?


Denton Massey: I have the figure for January, 1936; it is 556,000. In the course of my remarks I purpose dealing with that slight reduction of ten per cent from the preceding January.
I have, too, a voluminous table which lays out in exact detail the summary by months of numbers reported by provinces as having been afforded relief from May, 1932, to January 31, 1937. The figures are given per month and are divided mainly into two parts dealing with direct relief, and other relief projects. Under direct relief there are the subdivisions "not including dried out areas" and "dried out areas." Then, each of these two subdivisions is further subdivided into heads of families, dependents, individual cases and total. Under "other relief projects" the subdivisions are as follows: Single homeless; provincial works; trans-Canada highway; municipal works; farm placement; federal works; movement and

The Budget-Mr. Massey
assistance of settlers, and relief settlement. Then there is a column showing the grand total of all the categories I have listed.
Picking the figures at random, let us look at February, 1933. In that month there were 1.533.842 on relief; in February. 1934. there were 1.491,059; in February, 1935, 1,433,891; in September, 1935, 985,288; in September, 1936, 1.029,156 and in January, 1937, 1.301.530.
In view of these figures it is difficult to understand how any hon. member who faces the facts therein disclosed can vote against the amendment as it is worded. The test of any effort is to be found in its results, not in the theory that motivates it or in the neatness of the applied pedantry. After all. if there is a job of work to be done, the effectiveness of the attempted work is to be found in the results. That fact hon. members must admit. The amendment states that the government has failed to take " effective measures to deal with the problem of unemployment," and in the face of the figures I have just placed on Hansard I am sure the feeling is widespread throughout the house that no matter what the measures may have been, no matter how sincere may have been their motivation, and no matter anything else, in the result they have failed.
Last evening the Minister of Labour (Mr. Pogers) in a speech to which I listened with great care, spoke as he always speaks-well. I have read his speech to-day; I have read it carefully, and it seems to me that he dealt with the problem of employment rather than with that of unemployment. The amendment deals with unemployment. The theories of employment are perhaps better known to the minister than to many hon. members, but the fact of unemployment, increasing as it has since September of last year, is one known to every hon. member.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It does that every year, from September.


Denton Massey: Yes, there is the seasonal change. But on the other hand, when the minister asked for it a few moments ago, I placed upon Hansard the figure for January. 1936, which indicated a decrease of ten per cent, with which, as I said at the time, I expect to deal as I proceed.
During the course of his budget speech, referring to employment, the Minister of Finance made these observations as reported at page 1216 of Hansard:
The disheartening aspect of these figures, however, is the obvious failure of employment to keep pace with the striking gains in business activity previously reported. Partial explanation of this is to be found in the substitution of full-time for part-time work and in the taking up of the "slack" which previously existed as a result of redundant staffs maintained by many employers who were reluctant to dismiss employees not really needed. For the rest, the explanation rests upon the progress of invention and the improvement in technical and managerial processes. To this extent it is a phenomenon which is usually met with in the early stages of recovery from depression. As it indicates an increased efficiency in the productive mechanism, its results are not to be deplored. Its ill effects are temporary: in the long run it increases employment by cheapening production and expanding consumer purchasing power. As recovery gathers momentum, increases in employment will tend to conform more closely to expansion in business activity.
It is well understood that employment or reemployment lags behind a rise in business activity. It is just as though unemployment were a large block to which was attached an elastic band in the hand of returning prosperity. If that hand is moved quickly, the block remains comparatively still until suddenly it jumps forward to the hand and meets it. Employment lags behind a rise in business activity. If there be a rise in business activity and if there be unemployment, then some artificial stimulation must be given to unemployment as a whole in order to maintain an even basis between the increased business activity and employment. During the course of his remarks, the Minister of Finance stated, as reported on page 1213 of Hansard:
An obvious indicator of the general state of our economic health is the volume of dividend distributions by corporations. It is gratifying to report, therefore, that reliable estimates of profits for the past year were the highest since 1930. and reveal an increase of more than 13 per cent over the 1935 total.
With that I do not agree. During the last few years I think we have come to a greater realization of the intrinsic value of human values and human feelings. In these days we should not consider alone figures which may be introduced in a budget speech. We must not consider alone figures relative to unemployment; we must try to see what is behind those figures. Therefore, it seems to me that the real indicator of economic progress in Canada is not to be found on paper but in the number of the unemployed and the living conditions under which those men and their families are compelled to live. The only test of economic progress ,in Canada is to be found in our standard of living.
The Minister of Labour stated last night that while he was not satisfied with the progress that had been made, he was encouraged by it. I think there are many hon. members of this house who will agree with the first part of that statement, that they are not satisfied, but there are many who are,
The Budget-Mr. Massey

to phrase it mildly, discouraged by the continuing ghastly figures of unemployment. During the course of his remarks we listened to many statements with reference to the "broad aspects of the unemployment problem" and the "broad principles" that were to motivate the National Employment Commission. What are those broad aspects? What are those broad principles? If we spread ourselves out so broadly and so thinly, as we seem to be doing, the aspects and the principles may be broad, but they are not such as will cure unemployment. We are not interested in theory; we are interested in practice. The government is charged with a direct responsibility. We are not challenged as a parliament to study the wide application of broad aspects and broad principles. This parliament should seek, as this country does demand, direct results. It is results that count.
The minister placed upon Hansard the cost of operating the National Employment Commission to date. He stated that the members of the commission have received to date as salaries and travelling expenses a total of $18,066. The total expenditure for the youth employment committee have amounted to $8,951.51, and for the women's employment committee, $2,916. The total cost of personnel so far is $16,888.89, while the full cost of registration is $40,596.32. The complete total cost is $87,418. No statement was made by the minister as to the cost of calculating machines, office rentals and the like.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was all included in the cost of registration.


Denton Massey: I am relieved to hear that. A total of $87,418 has been spent so far by this National Employment Commission. For what? The minister listed some alleged accomplishments of the commission. We listened with a great deal of interest to what he recited as the returns for this $87,418. With a flush of pride the minister announced that 46,000 men had been placed under the farm placement scheme. That was started by whom?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A continuance of the old plan.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Developed from it.


Denton Massey: Developed from what?
From the old plan set up by the late government.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I made that quite plain.


Denton Massey: Did this recent development really require $87,418? I compliment the minister to the degree that he could have

done the job himself just as well. It did not need an expenditure of $87,418 to improve that plan.
Then the minister referred to the fact that approximately 5.000 men had been placed in the forests of British Columbia. The National Employment Commission was no doubt responsible for the Ottawa agreements and the United States trade agreement 1 There is a natural absorption of labour in the coming of good times. British Columbia received many benefits under the empire trade agreements of 1932. It has been stated by hon. gentlemen opposite over and over again with triumph that the lumber industry of British Columbia received extraordinary benefits under the United .States agreement. Looking through a pamphlet issued by the bureau of statistics giving a number of items affected by the Canada-United States trade agreement, as far as exportation from Canada is concerned, I find certain figures concerning in part at least British Columbia forests and dealing with Canadian exports to the United States. A comparison of the 1935 and 1936 figures is as follows:
1935	1936
Piling	$	19,900	$	36,500
Plank and board
softwood	
7,555,800	11,284,100Shingles	
7,271,800	6,027,600Wood pulp	
22,290,300	26,504,500Newsprint	
70,957,500	83,545,900Total	$108,095,300	$127,398,600
The increase amounted to $19,303,300, or 18 per cent. Is it not possible that a very substantial proportion of these five thousand young men went to work in the forests of British Columbia as a result of that increase as well as the substantial increases consequent upon the Ottawa 1932 agreements? Did it take the combined efforts of $87,418 worth of national employment commission to place these five thousand men?
During the course of his remarks the minister also referred, with no small degree of emphasis, to the removal of a great blot that had besmirched the escutcheon of Canada. He did not use that language, but he no doubt had it in his mind when he referred to the relief camps. He told us how these relief camps had been closed. He was speaking of the National Employment Commission at the time-


Norman McLeod Rogers: I was not speaking of the commission at that time.


Denton Massey: Not at that particular time? I thought the commission was in his mind all through his speech. You could see that he was haunted by it. I recall very clearly in this chamber last session, prior to the

The Budget-Mr, Massey
setting up of the National Employment Commission the minister telling the story of the closing of the relief camps. He referred yesterday to the men who had worked on the railways last summer, and he was followed by the member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) who gave the house facts and figures from his own experience as to the results. I am forced from my own experience, Mr. Speaker, to agree with my hon. friend from Vancouver North that the results have been far from satisfactory, and the results this summer were unsatisfactory so far as the young men were concerned. The railways benefited very much by what was done, but the young men did not benefit at all so far as I have been able to see. Where have these men gone since the railway work was finished? The member for Vancouver North told us last night where some of them had gone. When I was in Calgary and Edmonton in November, 1936, responsible persons informed me of their worries in regard to these young men who were floating into their cities. Vancouver tells the same story. The same story can be told in the east. The city of Toronto could tell the same story. Is this an achievement of the National Employment Commission? Is this what we received for $87,418?
Then the minister referred to the home improvement plan. I have already spoken of the home improvement plan in this chamber, and I see no reason why I should recall any remarks that I have made concerning it. It i3 a step, but it is a small step, in the creation of work. The results to date, in spite of the high pressure that has been put on the home improvement plan, as a result of the efforts of $87,418 worth of commission, have been about $1,500,000, I believe. Am I not correct in that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Close to $2,000,000, I think.


Denton Massey: Getting close to $2,000,000, and that after a half million dollar advertising campaign, every dollar of which was subscribed for the good of the cause.
The right hon. leader of the opposition yesterday afternoon placed upon Hansard what he called a "deadly parallel" between the 1932 agreements and the present agreement with the United Kingdom. If time permitted this afternoon I could place upon Hansard a deadly parallel between the United States home improvement plan and the Canadian plan. Our home improvement plan was lifted bodily from the United States-with a few changes, I admit-and brought to Canada. Did it require $87,418 worth of commission to lift that plan from the United
States? Again I compliment the minister to the extent of saying that he himself could have prepared the Canadian plan.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But not the organization across the country.


Denton Massey: Not perhaps the organization across the country, but certainly if the plan is as worthy as he thinks it is, the provinces, which are so "emphatically Liberal," as we have heard over and over again, and the municipalities, would have rejoiced to cooperate with him.
In the course of his remarks the minister made a statement which rather interested me. He said:
Again, I think one can say that that kind of nation-wide cooperative effort was rendered possible only by the National Employment Commission. I feel certain that it could not have been put into effective operation by any department of the dominion government.
That I think is a reflection on the minister's own department and on the Department of Finance. I am sure hon. members on both sides of this house have a higher opinion of those two departments than that. I do not see that it requires in any way, shape or form $87,418 worth of commission to copy and set up and operate the home improvement plan.
And what was all the minister was able to place before this house as having been accomplished by the commission so far? I have referred to the 46,000 placed on farms under the farm placement plan which was inaugurated by the former government, and to the 5,000 who have gone into the forests of British Columbia as a result of improved conditions. I have referred to the fiasco of the railway labour plan of last summer, and to the so far inept home improvement plan, inept so far as creating work is concerned. That is all we have to show for our $87,418 worth of commission.
The minister also referred to the fact that registration throughout the municipalities had been carried forward with great effectiveness, so much so that many of those who were on relief were found to be unworthy of relief, or were found not to be in a position of necessity to continue on relief. The minister put it this way, that when they were called to census they did not have the courage to respond. But that registration was not done by the commission, Mr. Speaker; it was done by the municipalities and paid for by the municipalities, and the registration of those on relief, if the minister had required the total figures, could have been completed in the bureau of statistics. Surely the figures could have been sent in to the bureau from
The Budget-Mr. Massey

the municipalities, totalled, and handed to the minister. Then the statement I read at the introduction of my remarks in regard to those on relief, going back to 1931, is a clear statement of fact relative to relief rolls. Surely the minister will admit that it is a fairly efficient statement; and what further information was necessary to the minister in regard to his great plan to cure unemployment? The minister has before him constantly figures as a result of the activities of his own department, and there is a basis upon which he could work and plan. The registration, I repeat, was carried forward by the municipalities and not by the commission; the Labour department's own figures are adequate; why then the need of $87,418 worth of commission to supply him with duplicate figures and statistics?
Let us examine another aspect of the situation. We listened with a good deal of interest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) as he introduced his budget, and may I say, as I have risen in my place to speak on the amendment rather than on the budget, that I have not yet congratulated the Minister of Finance upon his excellent presentation. After he presented his budget we saw headlines in the daily press about this "cheerful budget." I have not seen any references to the cheerfulnes of the minister, which might have been more apt. But the cheerfulness, if any, of the budget was unquestionably based on the trade figures. Exports, the minister reported, were up twenty-three per cent; imports were up fifteen per cent, and hon. members pounded their desks to express their approbation. Let us examine the figures for just a moment.
In 1935 our exports to the United Kingdom amounted to 37-2 of our total exports, and our exports to the empire amounted to 43 per cent of our total exports. Then 43-4 per cent of our exports went to the United States. The year 1936 presents an interesting contrast. Our exports to the United Kingdom had increased by 2-2 per cent, to 39-4 per cent of the total, and our exports to the empire had gone up by two-tenths of one per cent, to bring the figure to 43-2 per cent. Exports to the United States had dropped by 3-3 per cent to 40-1 per cent. We have been told that our trade with the United States has increased-which it has-and looking through the figures supplied to me by the bureau of statistics relative to trade I note that the increased total of the 1936 trade as compared with 1935 trade to the United States represents 13-3 per cent. As one looks through the United Kingdom trade figures one notices there an increase of 34 per cent under the old

Ottawa agreements. Thus, under the new agreement with the United States there was an increase of 13-3 per cent and under the old Ottawa agreement with the United Kingdom there was an increase of 34 per cent. Now, Mr. Speaker, times are getting better as far as trade is concerned, but who am I or who is the Minister of Finance or who is any hon. member of this house to face an unemployment situation wherein there are, in round figures, 1,300,000 people on relief and 500,000 unemployed; to stand up and say " times are getting better in terms of trade " and not go further and present a program for the amelioration of unemployment? I submit that the general betterment of Canadian conditions to date has been not because of government action but chiefly in spite of government inaction.
What tools have been used to decrease unemployment? What tools, outside of the United States agreement, have been used to increase employment?


An hon. MEMBER:: Quack remedies.


Denton Massey: There have been the Ottawa agreements. There has been the general rise in world conditions. With neither of these things has the present government had anything to do; the former, as the leader of the opposition so ably pointed out yesterday, was bitterly opposed by those who constitute the present government. Of course Canadian conditions are better, but unemployment continues at the ghastly high pitch at which it now is. And why? The reason, it seems to me, is obvious-the result of Liberal policy to attempt to develop Canada outside of Canada. The defects of that policy have never been more ably demonstrated than they are to-day, when trade outside of Canada is increasing yet unemployment refuses of itself to decrease.
On page 1426 of Hansard the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) is reported as having said, last evening.
It has been announced that by reason of the marked economic recovery in the past year the dominion government is now entitled to accept a lesser degree of financial responsibility for unemployment relief.
Those words frightened me when I heard them. What does the minister mean by " accept a lesser degree of responsibility " for the burden of relief? He refers, I assume, to direct relief paid out in dollars. The unemployment situation, Mr. Speaker, is not going to be cured by the continual paying out of dollars. A return of good times-within itself seemingly an act of God as far as this present government is concerned-may fall into the lap of this government and permit

The Budget-Mr. Massey
them, when an election comes, to go to the people and say " see what we have done," though actually they have done nothing at all. But no possible increase in good times can substantially or fully reduce unemployment automatically. Therefore, if the government feel that they are getting to the point where they can accept lesser responsibility as far as the burden of relief is concerned, that indeed is bad news for the people of Canada. I listened carefully to the minister's statement, and heard him say, as reported at page 1428 of Hansard:
We took the ground, Mr. Speaker, before we came into office, and we take the ground now, that if anyone is going to deal with this many-sided, complex question upon the basis of long-term policies, it is essential that the dominion government shall have before it at all times the means of measuring the magnitude of the problem, the means of securing those elements in the problem which will permit its division, as it were, into separate and distinct problems, each of which can in due course be attacked by its own technique, and by its own appropriate governmental or private agency.
I have said in this house before, and I repeat, that surely the problem of unemployment is stark and obvious. Surely it is not necessary to delve down deep into figures and splash about in a bath of statistics and have machines running in Montreal and Ottawa and this, that and the other kind of mechanical appliance pouring out figures, figures, figures, in the face of so stark and obvious a reality. Even when this $87,418 worth of commission brings in its report, what happens?


Mr. MacNICOL:: Nothing.


Denton Massey: The Votes and Proceedings of January 29, 1937, contain the following among other questions and answers in connection with the employment commission, asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green):
How many reports upon measures and means in respect to the employment of youth have been made by this committee?
Referring to the youth employment committee of the National Employment Commission. The answer is:
Five reports have been made to the National Employment Commission.
The next question is:
When were such reports made?
And the answer:
August 6, August 25, October 9, 1936, January 6. 1937 (two).
Five reports on youth have been made so far to the $87,418 worth of commission. Now where is the legislation? What is the value
of the reports? What is going to be done? Some of us who are privileged to have personal acquaintance or friendship with the members of the committee know that they- many of them-have not been idle, that they -many of them-have done their work to the best of their ability. These reports have been sent in to the minister, but what has been done? We listened with a great deal of interest to the speech from the throne, and in it the youth legislation forecast for this session. Where, oh where is that legislation? Wherein is the value of this youth committee of the National Employment Commission? Reports? Yes, but nothing is done. And there is so much to be done. No one can deny that much can be done. Why was something not done long ago, during these past months, these seventeen months all blank, bleached and barren of legislation to cure unemployment?
The one who is now the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), speaking during the course of the campaign, on August 6, 1935. as reported in the Evening Citizen, laid out a program to cure unemployment. He said:
The program to -which a national commission would be asked, by a Liberal government, especially to direct its attention, with a view to ensuring co-operative effort, would include necessary projects already commenced or previously undertaken, such as:	public works,
buildings, and municipal improvements; the extension and improvement of highways, and the elimination of level crossings; the provision of airway facilities and ground services; large-scale schemes of afforestation, aimed, amongst other things, at preventing those conditions of drought and soil drifting which follow upon the absence or wholesale destruction of tree life.
Where is any of these things, seventeen months after? The one who made those remarks was given the responsibility of government by the people of Canada, and was given it upon the basis of statements such as these. What -has been done? Surely afforestation is a crying need. It does not require $87,418 worth of commission to tell the minister that that should be done. He knows, he must know that at the rate of cutting in Canada as of 1928 and 1929 the available forests of this country will be done away with in forty years. These are careful estimates, not haphazard figures. Surely the minister can look to Sweden and see there the effect of what has been done there in the way of reforestation: that Sweden to-day, after eighty-six or eighty-seven years of serious and concentrated cutting, has available sixty per cent more timber than it had eighty-six years ago. The minister knows the value of reforestation. He has already admitted it in this chamber. Does he have to wait for this
The Budget-Mr. Massey

$87,418 worth of commission to report? Perhaps the commission did report. What has been done? Where is the legislation? Why the delay?
I spoke in this house about a fortnight ago in connection with housing. The resolution was introduced and duly debated; it was talked out, and it now rests, comfortably or otherwise, in the boneyard. Surely the project of housing is one which must have the full attention of the minister. It should not require $87,418 worth of commission to tell him what has been done in other countries, or to assist him in gathering together those eight outstanding gentlemen who, as Liberal premiers of provinces throughout Canada, were to be assembled in glorious concatenation, and out of which delicious and harmonious gathering there was to be born that which was to be delecfr-able to the nation as a whole. Where is this Liberal prodigy? What is being done to-day? Where is all this cooperation? Nothing is done!
One may travel through the cities of the country and along our highways and find menacing grade crossings. What is being done towards the elimination of the grade crossings menace? Within my own riding there are grade crossings at Jones, Greenwood and Woodbine avenues; also in my political neighbour's riding at Victoria Park avenue, all a distinct menace to the city. This year the estimates contain an item of $19,000 for Toronto to provide, as the hen. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) says, "revolving doors for the post office." Wliat of those projects that could be carried forward to give employment and at the same time bring about an improvement in our cities? Let me refer to page 445 of Hansard.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I regret to inform the hon. member that he has spoken forty minutes.


Denton Massey: I appreciate the tolerance of the house, Mr. Speaker, and will say in conclusion that I was about to quote the Minister of Labour, who in a debate in this house, said that it would be necessary to gain the full cooperation of the provinces before much can be done. That is the pronouncement, as far as this session goes, of the Minister of Labour with respect to the unemployment situation. We can do nothing until the provinces are ready to cooperate. What a hopeless state of affairs for the industrial worker to contemplate! How long before the British North America Act will be amended?


Mr. E. J. POOLE (Red Deer):: I wish to say a few words on the amendment, and

in the first place to point out one or two things to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). A year ago, as I remember clearly, the Minister of Labour, discussing Canada's greatest problem, said that it was to be attacked on all fronts. This group has endeavoured from time to time to indicate the direction in which we must go and to point out to this house that there can be no solution of the problem that faces the people of Canada until such time as there is definite monetary reform. It seems strange that to-day the Minister of Labour has not all the facts before him, and I have wondered since this debate began whether he has taken the trouble to go through the soup kitchens of western Canada, whether he has been in the city of Winnipeg for instance, or Edmonton, or Calgary or Lethbridge. and seen the price we are paying in Canada for the so-called depression.
In the last few days we have heard from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who has spoken in glowing terms of Canada's recovery; he has told us that those old happy days of prosperity are coming back. May I suggest to the Minister of Finance that the prosperity has not been felt by the great mass of people whom we refer to as the unemployed. In the last six years we have spent more than one billion dollars for no other purpose than to give relief. In my opinion it has been a wanton waste, nothing more or less; and I say that neither this government nor the previous government has contributed to the solution of Canada's greatest national problem, unemployment. I say that because we have the physical evidence before us of human waste and moral degeneration. I wonder how many members of the Liberal party have ever gone into the mission relief camp in Ottawa, not more than half a mile from, here, and seen the wanton waste of human life. Have they ever watched the eyes of men, human beings, and thought that after all, questions of dollars and cents should be submerged and human values be allowed to predominate and be uppermost in our consideration?
I suppose I can speak with greater confidence-I am sure, I can speak with at least as much authority as any member of this house-on the question of unemployment. What happenedi in 1930 when the Conservative party was elected? At that time we were promised that unemployment would vanish if they were elected and so for five years we waited' patiently. I do not believe there is any section of Canadian society that is more docile, more patient, than the unemployed, and I am going to use a word now

The Budget-Mr. Poole
which may shake the feelings of some here or impinge upon their dignity; I have wondered, as I have looked into the eyes of the people in the soup kitchens of Canada, whether revolution after all was such a great wrong. We are in the process of one now, and I recognize the necessity of a transitional period. But I say to the government that they have contributed nothing yet to the solution of Canada's greatest problem, not the question of unemployment but the demoralization, the lost hopes of a lost generation. That is what we have. lost.
The Liberal government still fails to realize that it is not a question of work; it is a question of the Canadian people coming into the inheritance which is theirs, and rightly so. You cannot measure the price of the depression in terms of dollars and cents. On many occasions in this house members have risen on the government side and said, or at any rate implied, that the good old days would return, that prosperity would come again by the age-old route of the expansion of external trade. The Minister of Finance, last year as well as this year, told us so. In very jubilant tones he says that prosperity has returned to Canada. The question I ask is: Prosperity to whom? To the under dog, to the mass of the Canadian people, to those who are down and out, to the people who have left our schools and colleges and universities? No, not to them. Canada is losing more to-day than it ever lost-not in dollars and cents, but in talent, in culture, in all the things that go to make a nation.
Last year the Minister of Labour proposed to this house that a commission be set up, and it was set up, and registration of the unemployed was carried out. But to what effect? Did it tell us the number of unemployed in Canada? Did it tell us the number of people who no longer have the right to live?, Of course not. All it did was tell us the number who are on relief. But if we are to get to the bottom of this problem we must divide the unemployed into many categories. There are people who are married and have families dependent on them and who are compelled to go to relief officers, skilful men who have contributed and will in the future contribute to the development of Canada. There are the single unemployed. There are those who are coming out of colleges and universities, and, greatest number of all, those not registered; I refer to the farmers' sons who to-day are living on the farms but if conditions were normal would be in industry.
What was done in Great Britain? While there may be many shortcomings in their legislation to provide for the unemployed,
this government could learn a great deal from Great Britain. What would happen in this country if there was a demand for skilled labour to-morrow in the same volume as in the years 1928-27-28? It could not be found.
In 1925 or thereabouts they set up in Great Britain trade schools throughout the country and taught trades to the unemployed. Then when the building boom came along they were absorbed into industry. I am not saying that is a solution, but I am suggesting to the Minister of Labour that this could have been done by the Canadian government, who have spent a billion dollars and have received nothing for it.
The unemployed of this country are a liability. The Minister of Finance has told us of our increase in volume of trade; according to him our trade has increased by more than twenty per cent. I am not encouraged by that, because there is a story behind it, and I want to take a few minutes to tell the Canadian public what that story is. If the price of wheat and of agricultural products in Canada had increased because there was a natural demand for those things, we might well say that the Liberal government had accomplished at least something. But that is not the fact. The reason the people of Canada to-day are enjoying a higher price level for their products is the demand by other countries for the products of Canada. That demand has arisen not because the purchasing countries have increased their ability to consume goods, but because there [DOT] is the fear of war; other nations are storing up goods, preparing for the inevitable day when war will come and every nation in the world will be affected by the conflagration. Any hon. member who has given ten minutes' serious study to these things must know that.
As I conceive the duty of government it is to have a long range view of these matters, and, recognizing that this is a transitional period, to see the things which they must do during the period of transition and of inflation -so unwelcome to the Minister of Finance, although he is a party to it-with a view to preparing and constructing for the future.
I say that four years from to-day Canada will enter its greatest depression, and not only Canada but every nation in the world.
I say that for this reason, that unemployment is not and never was a problem. Unemployment is a sign of progress. Every unemployed man in Canada has a right, just as surely as the man who holds shares in an industry, to share in the benefits that accrue from increased production and the application of science to production. The little group in this corner may receive the sympathy of some hon. members on the government
The Budget-Mr. Poole

benches because of the difficulties that confront us, but I know the day will come-not because it is desired by the Liberal government. but because it will be thrust upon them-when monetary reform will be seen to be the logical answer and the only answer to the problems which confront the Dominion of Canada.
I wish to commend the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl). He placed before this house facts, something which is not always done. He endeavoured to show the house that production was increasing, but the Minister of Finance also told the house this year and last that in spite of the increased volume of production unemployment is not decreasing as we might expect it should if we were living in the happy days of twenty years ago. I am convinced as a member of the Social Credit party of Canada that in the not far distant future the government side of the house will be lined with monetary reformists. We appeal to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour, the Prime Minister, when we know that certain things must be done in the way of social services, and the question arises, " Where is the money to come from "?


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 4, 1937