1938-05-02

NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 108. to amend the National Harbours Board Act.
He said: The purpose of the bill is to permit action against the National Harbours Board
Questions
[Stage Direction]
in any court having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims, in the same way as against individuals.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 109, to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
He said: Subsection (c) of section 19 of the Exchequer Court Act gives jurisdiction to the exchequer court to hear and determine claims against the crown arising out of any death or injury to person or to property resulting from the negligence of any officer or servant of the crown while acting within the scope of his duties or employment upon any public work. The purpose of the bill is to strike out the four words "upon any public work".
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 110, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the session of 1926-27 an amendment was passed to the Northwest Territories Act providing for the levying of a tax on furs shipped from or taken out of the Northwest Territories. Under the provisions of that act appropriate regulations were passed by the Northwest Territories council. There is reason to believe that furs are now being taken out without the necessary permit having been obtained under the act, and the purpose of the present measure is to provide the appropriate means to protect the public interest in this respect.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What representations, if any, have been made by this government to the British govern-
[Mr_ E. Lapointe.]
ment with respect to an increase of war disability pensions payable to imperial veterans of the great war now residing in Canada?
2.	If any such representations have been so made, what were the nature and character of same ?
3.	What has been the attitude of the British government with respect to such representations?
4.	Will this government consider the arrangement of a conference with the British government for the purpose of further discussing the above matter?


Mr. POWER:: During the session of 1936 there was set up a committee on pensions and returned soldier problems. During the course of the hearing before the committee strong representations were made by exsoldiers who had served in the imperial forces, at present residing in Canada, to the effect that representations should be made on their behalf to the British government. During that summer, while on the trip to Vimy, I had occasion to discuss with officers of the British Ministry of Pensions the situation with respect to these ex-imembers of the imperial forces. I made certain informal representations. As a result of these representations I came to the conclusion that no particular encouragement would 'be given to the idea that there should be special recognition for ex-imperial soldiers now residing in Canada. The British government, or representatives of the British government with whom I discussed the matter, felt at that time that it would not be fair to ex-service men residing in other dominions that special favours or special privileges should be accorded to ex-mem'bers of the forces in Canada.
As to the fourth question, this is a matter of government policy, and I do not think it has a place on the order paper.


OVERSEAS SERVICE OF CANADIAN TUNNELLING COMPANY
Mr. MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: 1.	When the Canadian tunnelling company was formed in 1915, for special service overseas, were the members thereof promised extra pay?
2.	Was extra pay promised them as an inducement to join said company?
3.	If so, have these men been paid this extra
pay?	.
4.	Did the imperial and Australian companies, engaged in similar special work, receive extra pay? If so, at what rate?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	No extra pay was authorized to be paid to personnel enlisted in, or transferred to Canadian tunnelling companies, and no officer was authorized to make any promise as to extra pay.

Motions for Papers
2.	and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4. Personnel mustered as tunnellers in British tunnelling companies in 1915, received certain special inclusive rates of pay, ranging from 6s. Od. to 8s. Id. per day, depending on rank-from Sapper to Sergeant.
Tunnellers' mates received working pay at the rate of Is. Od. per day in addition to the pay of their ranks.
No information as to rates of pay in Australian tunnelling companies is available in the department.
^REPORTED REVOLUTION PROPOSED IN QUEBEC BY FATHER GRAVEL


Mr. CHURCH:: What action will be taken by the government to prevent or suppress the revolution proposed by Father Gravel as the means for the people of Quebec to recapture their own province as reported by the press of Quebec city in articles published on April 6, 1938.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: This
question serves to show the soundness of the rules of the house to the effect that a question should seek to obtain information, not to supply it to the house. The government is not aware of the facts mentioned by the hon. gentleman, but I know personally that he has been wrongly informed, at least in some important particulars. I may add that the fears of the hon. gentleman are groundless. There will be no revolution in Quebec.


REPORTED ILLEGAL IMPORTATION OF ARMS INTO QUEBEC
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has an investigation been held by the government into the alleged smuggling of arms and ammunitions from the United States by fascists in the province of Quebec, as recorded in a special dispatch from Montreal to the weekly Toronto Star of April 23, 1938?
2.	What action will be taken in the matter?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: 1.	Yes.
2.	It is not considered in the public interest to answer this question.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. MacKINNON (Edmonton West):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged in the past year between the attorney general of the government of Alberta and the Department of Justice relating to the proposed termination of the contract for the policing of the province of Alberta by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
THE "TRUTH seeker"


Mr. PELLETIER:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Minister of National Revenue or any officer of his department, and the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, publishers of the " Truth Seeker," concerning the admission into Canada of this publication.



WAINWRIGHT, ALTA., RURAL MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. FAIR:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged during 1936 and 1937 between the Postmaster General or any official of the Post Office Department, and any other interested parties in connection with contract for hauling mail on Wainwright No. 1 rural route.



PELAGIC SEALING

Mr. NEILL:: 1.	A copy of all or any regulations made by the Department of Fisheries or the government for carrying out the provisions of the Pelagic Sealing Act of 1913, now chapter 153 of R.S.C. 1927, showing also the act and section on the authority of which they were issued and, if they were gazetted, the date of such gazetting;
2.	A copy of any or all letters from any official of the Department of Fisheries containing instructions or requests to any customs officer regarding the inspection or confiscation of seal skins between the passing of the Pelagic Sealing Act of 1911 and the present date;
3.	For a return showing the latest date up to which, in each case, the United States, Russia and Japan, respectively, have paid to Canada the appropriate sum of money or delivered the appropriate number of seal skins due to be received by Canada from each of the countries named under the terms of the Pelagic Sealing Treaty of 1911.



WASHABUCK CENTRE, N.S., WHARF REPAIRS

Mr. BROOKS:: For a copy of all payrolls for labour and costs of material in connection with the repairs made to the Washabuck Centre wharf, Victoria county, Nova Scotia, under the foremanship of Mr. R. J. McLean.



E. H. PELLETIER

Sir EUGENE FISET (for Mr. Deslauriers):: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government or any officer thereof and any other persons with respect to Mr. E. H. Pelletier, post office employee at Montreal.



FISH TRAPS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. NEILL:: For-1. A return showing all correspondence between the minister or any official of the Department of Fisheries and any other person regarding the use of fish traps in British Columbia since February 1, 1937, to date;
Relief and Agricultural Distress

2. A copy of any petitions regarding fish traps in British Columbia received by the Minister of Fisheries since September 1, 1937, showing the date received, to whom the petitions were addressed, the disposition made of the petitions, and names, addresses and occupations, if given, of the signatories thereto.



NEW WESTMINSTER HARBOUR


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister-for the Minister of Transport) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce amendments to the New Westminster Harbour Commissioners Act to extend the boundaries of the harbour and to provide remuneration for the services of the commissioners out of harbour revenues.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 29, consideration in committee of Bill No. 105, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. WrOODSWORTH: Mr. Chairman, this bill is along the lines of the legislation of previous years. I should like to get the minister if possible to state whether the administration is to be along the line of previous years. Since the discussion on Friday the report of the dominion commissioner of unemployment relief has been distributed. Surely it is not too much to ask the minister whether he proposes to proceed along similar lines next year. When legislation of this kind was first introduced it was confessedly emergency legislation; it included drought relief and unemployment relief. ' Drought is due to natural causes-according to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), due to an act of God. Unemployment, on the other hand, is undoubtedly due to the blundering of man. I do not know why the two should again be put together this year.

Since unemployment can no longer be regarded as an emergency, it should not be dealt with by an emergency measure. Let us take the figures-and I am speaking now of relief apart from drought. I notice that in March, 1934, the numbers assisted, as reported by the provinces and the federal departments, excluding the drought areas, totalled 1,205,863; in March 1935, the number was 1,172,246; in March 1936, 1,240,074; and in March 1937. 1,045,766. Then unemployment dropped until in September of that year the number assisted was 543,336; but since that time the numbers on relief have been steadily increasing until we are back again in March to 848,497. So that the problem, far from having been solved, seems to be again on the increase.
I submit that this type of relief is haphazard. It bears every mark of an improvised scheme and is wholly inadequate; there are many gaps and many people are suffering. Take transients. The development of this country called for a large number of unskilled or semi-skilled workmen, a huge mobile army that could be readily transported from one province to another. This army still exists, but its members cannot establish residence in any one province. That is the difficulty. There are some 4,000 of them now roaming the streets of Vancouver; many of them belong no more to Vancouver than to Ontario or Saskatchewan or Alberta. They are part of that great army. Vancouver city ought not to be called upon to take care of them, nor should the province of British Columbia, and jret this government looks to the province to do this sort of thing. It will be said, of course, that the difficulty is inherent in our constitution, but it seems to me that we must find some way to get around it.
Since the discussion on Friday two memoranda have been sent to me from my own city of Winnipeg, one pleading for highway construction, and the other for help in the repairing and erection of school buildings. It may be said that under the British North America Act school buildings are obviously a school responsibility; but the province is almost bankrupt; and after all, why should we have expenditures on unneeded barracks, and not have expenditures on needed homes? WThy should we have ornate public buildings in one part of the country, while in another part of the country we are not able to provide even for schools and hospitals?
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) in the discussion the other day spoke in favour of projects for youth training. I quite agree with him, but I would point out that the training of youth is worth very

Relief and Agricultural Distress
little unless it is supplemented by work for the young people so trained. Are we going to have to wait and wait until possibly a war breaks out or some other catastrophe of that kind overtakes us before granting to our youth what seems to me to be their inherent right, an opportunity to work?
There is another matter I wish to mention in this connection and that is unemployment insurance. It ought to be an integral part of any scheme of this kind. The government promised that measure very definitely at the last election. They are pledged to unemployment insurance. I do not think they can very well escape responsibility by saying that one or two provinces object to the scheme. The problem is still there. Ways and means were found, in regard to old age pensions, whereby the measure was actually put into operation even though a number of the provinces were opposed: and now even the provinces that were opposed at that time have fallen into line. We have a right to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who is now in his seat, to tell us whether the government proposes at this session to bring down unemployment insurance.
We hear a great deal from members of this house about the pioneering spirit. We are told that a great many of the unemployed ought to get out and work as the pioneers did. But surely anyone who makes this statement must realize that conditions are very different now from the conditions under which our pioneering forefathers came to this country and established homes for themselves. They were able to push into the wilderness, to conquer new territory, to discover new resources and to invent new methods. Why should not. we in this house exhibit the pioneer spirit? It seems to me that it is our duty in these days to do pioneering in our modern industrial, commercial and social environment. What is the use of following along day after day, week after week, year after year, the old principle of giving doles to beggars? If we had one-tenth of the spirit of the pioneers we in this house would invent some new way of dealing with unemployment.
As I said on Friday, I hesitate to criticize the Minister of Labour in this fashion, because there is no member of the cabinet for whom I have a higher regard; but I must insist that the government must be held responsible for this situation. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) I believe it was, pleaded for cooperation. We are very willing to cooperate, but every member of the house knows that members in opposition-for that matter any private member

cannot bring in a money
bill. We know that according to the composition of the house the government has an enormous majority, and the government in taking office takes the responsibility of dealing with this situation. I do not think the minister is justified in simply bringing in an enabling bill without giving us a very much fuller explanation than he has hitherto done of what the department and the government propose to do with this question, which he himself admits is one of the most important questions before the Canadian people to-day.
Mr. HEAPS:: Before the clause carries I hoped that the minister might have given an answer to my hon. friend's question. The other evening I discussed the question of relief allowances, and the minister informed me at that time that the government have very little control over the amount of relief that is granted. I do not know exactly what methods are adopted by the department to control the amount of relief granted in the various municipalities. But in introducing this measure a few weeks ago the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) referred to the fact that there are certain districts in Canada where it was claimed that the relief scales were too high, or were competing in recent years with the labour market. When I raised this question the other night I had in mind the fact that in the Winnipeg district those in charge of the granting of relief were laying down certain scales of expenditures to apply to persons who, previously in receipt of relief, were working either on public projects or in private undertakings. I gave figures showing how much the recipients of relief were receiving. Now I am going to give the amount that a person working is allowed to spend. I want the committee to understand the importance of the implications of an organization laying down limits to the amount which persons who happen to have been in receipt of public relief may spend.
In Winnipeg the amount allowed to a husband and wife on relief was S12.76 for rood and S14.17 for rent, light, etc., making a total of $26.93 per month. Of course this does not include a great many things which are necessary to existence, such as clothing. According to the rules being laid down for the Winnipeg district it appears that if the husband is working the <;ouple will not be allowed to spend more than $50 per month. If they do, and if they go on relief again, they will find themselves penalized. For a household of five persons the maximum expenditure allowed is $80 per month. If they spend more and subsequently have to go on relief-and such greater expenditures may be unavoidable by reason of sickness for example

Relief and Agricultural Distress
-they will not be given public relief unless they can show to the relief commission exactly how that money has been spent. Now in this a vital principle is involved, and the government cannot absolve itself of responsibility. The minister claims that in some districts the scale of relief is too high, so he must have had something in mind. And when relief bodies lay down regulations as to how much a month a person who has received relief may spend, they are interfering with the standard of living in a way in which I think it ought not to be done by any public body. I should like to know whether the government are in any way responsible for these regulations. If they are not directly responsible I would ask the minister whether the government have approved of any of these regulations by control over the amount of money that is spent in any municipality.


Mr. ROGERS:: Taking up first the question raised by the hon. member who has just spoken, the determination of relief allowances has always remained with the municipalities, subject to provincial regulations. In the agreements between the dominion and the provinces covering the grants in aid, as I indicated last week, provision was made during the last quarter of the past year that the relief scales should not exceed the normal earnings of the individual or family. The intention of that was to prevent relief scales competing with the labour market. Apart from that we have not exercised any control whatsoever over the relief allowances in the various provinces and the municipalities within the provinces, nor do we approve the specific regulations made in the municipalities. My hon. friend will understand that those who are closest to the situation are in a far better position to do that than any officials of the dominion Department of Labour would be. There is a great diversity of relief allowances across this country from Prince Edward Island to Vancouver, and. as I pointed out before, even within the provinces there is great diversity. I know of no way in which you can deal with that satisfactorily under existing conditions except to leave it with the municipalities who are primarily concerned.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the minister approve of these municipal or other bodies associated with the granting of relief laying down rules as to the amount a family may spend during the time they are off relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is also a provision in the recent agreements with the provinces whereby there may be assistance through budgeting during the time they are off relief, in order that those who had been on relief

may be helped to spend their earnings in the most provident way. The whole intention is rather to give assistance to those who have been on relief, not to embarrass or handicap them in their reestablishment.
May I return to the series of questions raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I have no doubt they will be raised again in another form after we get beyond the title clause of the bill.
The first point he raised was with regard to the wisdom of separating agricultural relief from unemployment relief. In that connection he referred particularly to relief in the drought areas. He may not have been in the house the other day when I pointed out that when we were obliged to meet a recurrence of the drought situation in the autumn of last year it was decided that it would be preferable that the administration of direct relief in the drought areas should be placed where the administration of other forms of relief in the drought areas had already been placed, namely with the Department of Agriculture. That has been done, and will be continued.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I understood that,
but why bring in an omnibus bill which includes these very diverse types of relief in one measure ?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The reason lies in the
fact that we proceed under the broad provisions of this bill to enter into agreements with the various provinces concerning the administration of particular forms of relief. For instance during the past year we would normally have had as many as five agreements with the western provinces covering direct relief, youth training, joint works projects, and the various forms of drought relief. Under the broad provisions of this bill we enter into agreements with the provinces covering the various measures of relief.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What about transients?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We have dealt with the
provinces. We have recognized that transients ought not to be a direct burden upon the municipalities. At the same time there has been during the past teii years a constant movement of transients back and forth across the country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: For the past
twenty-five years or more.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am willing -to
agree that it has gone on much beyond ten years. It has been a feature of the growth of this country, as my hon. friend has said.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
But in other years these transients might have been regarded as seasonal workers. They were usually able, at least they were willing, to find seasonal work which would carry them through the year without having to depend in any way upon state assistance. During the very severe years of the recent depression provision was made for these single unemployed transients by me'ans of the relief camps established under the Department of National Defence. As many as 25,000 of these single unemployed were sheltered in these camps during the winter months. As my hon. friend is aware, that number was reduced very much during the summer months, in fact many of the camps were closed during that period. We prepared for that situation in a way which is fully understood by hon. members of the committee and I shall not go into it in great detail at this time.
We provided that the dominion and the provinces would assume responsibility for caring for these single homeless men during the winter months. This has been done by means of the farm employment plan in the prairie provinces and the forestiy conservation camps in British Columbia. In all cases these plans have operated within restricted seasons of the year, normally from mid-October until April or May. When the severe winter season had passed many of those who had found temporary shelter or employment under these plans for transients went to various occupations of a seasonal nature. By means of these plans we have stabilized the problem, at least during the winter months, at which time it used to be very severe.
I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will agree that the provisions made during the last two or three years for the single unemployed under the farm employment plan have certainly reduced the number who would have been receiving meals at the centres where meals were given out in Winnipeg. I have seen the figures and I am sure he is fully aware of that fact, regardless of what opinion he may have of the plan. We have undertaken that burden in conjunction with the provinces and naturally we have followed the advice of the provincial authorities as to what plans were best suited to their needs.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With regard to the situation in British Columbia, I do not think it was adequately dealt with by the minister's statement. Why should the province in which a man happens to find himself when up against it have to be burdened with his care when he is not able to establish residence? The various offices having to do with social work generally insist that a man must establish residence before he comes under a certain scheme, but I do not think these men are any more a responsibility of a particular province than they are of any other province in which they may have happened to be for the last two or three years.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That principle has never applied to any of the projects intended to care for the single homeless unemployed men. We have never applied a strict residence qualification. In British Columbia there has been a restriction as to the date beyond which a transient entering the province would not be employed on a particular project. That restriction was applied with the full approval of the provincial authorities. We have applied the most liberal residence provisions in connection with the employment of transients, either on the special projects or under the farm employment plan. As a matter of fact it is very difficult to determine the domicile of many of these transients in British Columbia. According to the latest report I have seen, of a total number of, say, 4,000 previously employed in the forestry conservation camps in British Columbia, possibly 1,800 came from outside the province. The presumption is that the remainder could establish domicile in British Columbia. However, there are two forms of transiency, transiency within the province and that which might be termed interprovincial transiency. There is a movement from city to city within a province and a movement from one province to another. That is why in dealing with that special aspect of the general problem we have tried to meet the provinces upon the basis of our accepting with them the responsibility for the care of these transients through the severe winter months. Our past experience has shown that during the summer months, when seasonal employment is available, it is not necessary to .provide this type of employment.
There is another thing which has been made perfectly clear from our experience and to which I am sure my hon. friend will agree. If you establish more favourable conditions for employment for a certain type of transient in one province than for another, you at once aggravate the problem in that province. You cannot give preferential treatment to a particular group of unemployed. In other words, you could not readily defend the establishment of works projects which would be confined exclusively to a particular group. That is why in suggesting works projects in other yehrs we have made them as readily available to married heads of families on relief as to the single unemployed.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Mr. GREEN:: Is there any reason why the city of Vancouver should be forced to care for these single unemployed transients who are not from Vancouver? As the minister has just said, a large proportion of them are not even from British Columbia. Is there any reason why the citizens of Vancouver should have to pay for these men during the few weeks in the spring after the camps close and in the fall before the forestry camps are open?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My impression is that the municipalities generally have not been held responsible for the care of these men apart from special projects. Assistance is given by the dominion to the provinces through grants in aid which are supposed to cover relief generally within the province, in no way excluding what may be done for these single unemployed men.


Howard Charles Green: These men cannot be allowed to starve. They go out with tin cans to collect money and many of them have been put in gaol. They have developed quite a technique in collecting money in the city. The result is that the citizens have to pay. Surely the dominion government should be able to make some provision to prevent the placing of this burden upon the citizens of the city. This condition is worse in Vancouver than in any other part of Canada. I believe we have more transients who drift into the city. I urge the minister to endeavour to find a solution for this problem, which arises every year.	-


Mr. MacINNIS:: When I spoke during the debate on the second reading of this bill on Friday last I drew to the attention of the house the situation existing in Vancouver. I pointed out that at the end of March this year there were approximately 6,900 persons on relief, that is, heads of families and single unemployed transients, but not including dependents of heads of families. I pointed out also that that was about one thousand less than at the same time last year. To take effect either on March 15 or April 1 the provincial government is compelling the cities and municipalities of British Columbia to take over the burden of the relief of a considerable number who heretofore have been cared for by the province. I received yesterday from Vancouver a statement of the number of cases and the monthly expenditures in connection with their keep. While at the end of March of this year the number of cases was one thousand less than last year, beginning with the first, of April 3,445 new cases have been placed on the relief list in the city of Vancouver. I presume that other cities and

municipalities had additions to their lists as well, but I am not conversant with that.
It is quite impossible for the city of Vancouver with falling revenues to take care of the increasing numbers of relief cases. The monthly cost for these 3,445 persons is computed at $34,072; that is for food, clothing and shelter, and does not take into account medical attention and other incidentals. The method that is now being followed in my opinion will never deal with the unemployment situation definitely or satisfactorily. We have to realize that the people can get their sustenance only from the industries of the country. It does not matter how it comes to them; it comes from industry in the last analysis, and this government will have to tell the owners of . industry that either they must so operate their industries that they will support the people of this country, or the government will organize industry for that purpose.


Mr. EDWARDS:: How can they do it?


Angus MacInnis: How otherwise are you going to end unemployment?


Alexander McKay Edwards: How are you going to operate industry if you have not any business?


Angus MacInnis: If it is not the business of industry to operate their industries to support the people of this country, what is it?


Alexander McKay Edwards: To make money.


Angus MacInnis: I am glad to get that answer. I have been telling this house for the last eight years that under the capitalist system the function of industry is to make profits for the owners of industry. But to-day industry cannot make profits for its owners and at the same time supply the people with the goods they need. That is the very thing that the government of this country and of every capitalist country has to face. I do not say that it is an easy problem to solve, that it can be taken care of offhand by just making a statement in this house or anywhere else; I am satisfied that it cannot be taken care of until we reorganize industry to perform the functions that industry was intended to perform. In the solution of that problem I am prepared to assist either by saying nothing or by helping in any other way that I can.


Alexander McKay Edwards: May I suggest to the hon. gentleman that the best way to do that sort of thing is to put a little money into industry and hire some people, and try it out.


Angus MacInnis: This is not the time to go into that point. It does not make any difference how much money you put into

Relief and Agricultural Distress
industry unless industry distributes the means of purchasing the goods produced. The difficulty we are met with to-day is that too much of the fruits of industry or of the income created by industry go to people who do not need it and cannot use it, and they cannot put it into new industry. There is any amount of money available in the Dominion of Canada and any amount of money available in the United States to double our industries, but we cannot dispose of the products because the people have not the means to buy them.
The Minister of Labour said a few moments ago that in dealing with the unemployment situation the government had to be careful that they did not give a scale of relief higher than the wages paid in industry, because otherwise there would be a tendency for people to go on relief and keep away from work. Would my hon. friend examine the payrolls of industry and the relief rolls and then express his opinion as to whether or not the people of this country, with the very small wages they are getting, or the very inadequate relief they receive, are able to buy the products of mass production industry? It simply cannot be done.


Mr. COLD WELL:: 

Relief and Agricultural Distress
of young people all across Canada. In order bo better their condition they are ready to turn to almost anything. Unless we wake up and do something we are going to be faced with a very serious situation.
These things have been said before. Before rising to speak I said to one of my colleagues that all this discussion seems so futile. I feel the futility of it all, because until we are prepared really to examine the fundamental basis of our economic and social structure and grapple with the problems which have arisen in that social and economic structure, we are not going to find the solution to the problem.
Two or three years ago I read the report of the Hoover committee in the United States, a very conservative committee set up by President Hoover in 1932, and reporting in 1934. While I speak entirely from memory I recall that that very conservative committee reported that if the industrial equipment of the United States, the labour then available, and the natural resources, were properly organized and utilized for the good of the American people, they could provide goods and services which would give to every family of five persons an average standard of living such as was then enjoyed by those who received incomes of over $4,000 per year.
That was a startling statement. We too have the resources; we have the equipment; we have the labour. Yet, under our present economic structure, leaving it to competitive industry-which, as the Minister of Agriculture showed, does not exist any more because another factor has entered into the economic structure which has set aside the old law of supply and demand-there is no cure. Perhaps if we could go back to that old law we might get a new start; but we cannot go back Society never does.
My purpose in rising is to emphasize the fact that fundamental changes must come, a fact with which I believe the minister must be familiar. I urge upon the minister and government to consider these matters in the light of new conditions which have arisen in the last twenty-five years, and to bring before us proposals not for the continuance of relief but for the elimination of unemployment and of the necessity of continuing to provide relief for persons who are able-bodied and ready and willing to work on the land, in the forests, in the mines, or in industry and elsewhere.


Mr. DEACHMAN:: The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) is an exceedingly able speaker. The house listens to him with rapt attention and then-I believe I am safe in following him and saying what he said-it agrees to do precisely nothing.

For a moment or two I should like to go back to 1930, and attempt to analyse the differences existing between 1930 and 1937. These, in my view, are the main causes of the unemployment we have to-day. In 1930 we had a one per cent sales tax, while in 1937 we had an eight per cent sales tax. In 1930 we had no excise tax, now we have a three per cent excise tax, in reality a tariff of that amount, upon all goods coming from foreign countries. In addition to that we have a tariff which has reached heights never before approached in Canadian history. It is so high that I feel quite certain neither the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) nor the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) could by any possibility look over the top of it.
We now have a tariff framed upon a new basis. Our customs tariff, which records the rates for the Dominion of Canada, is now distributed with blank pages interspersed here and there throughout the book. The object of the blank pages is to provide a place on which one may write the real tariff, because the tariff schedule as it stands does not reveal the true situation. One must get the true rate from the customs branch by a special statement. Even then I venture to assert that if to-day I were to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) the tariff on certain items of cotton goods from the United States he would have to tell me, "Well, it is recorded in the book." But one must then add three per cent to the tariff, and a further eight per cent sales tax, and then if one wishes to follow it through to the last he would be told that in addition section 36 of the Customs Act has to be considered, through which special values are imposed upon products coming from the United States. To a certain extent that value depends upon the humour of the man who makes the valuation or, to go back to an old phrase, the rate of customs duty depends upon the length of the chancellor's boot.
I venture to suggest to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister that if we were to return to the tariff and taxation levels of 1930 our unemployment problem would be solved. We are diverting a large amount of the earnings of our people from the purchase of consumers' goods to expenditures upon relief, railways and other things, and there is not left a sufficient sum to provide a normal purchasing power for the people of Canada.
When we consider these problems what do we do? The suggestions are many and varied. One man says we ought to provide unemployment insurance. Not long ago in the house I explained that after careful calculation I

Relief and Agricultural Distress
had found the earnings of the farmer amounted to S362 per year while the earnings of the labourer in industry amount to well over $900 per year. And so if we provided unemployment insurance we would be setting up further taxation upon people receiving less than $400 in order to provide insurance for those receiving more than $900. You are proposing to expend money upon public works, but I ask, when you have expended money upon public works, unless they render a direct serviceable value, unless they have an exchange value to the community, unless they assist in the movement of commodities or in some way in improving the efficiency of our services in the Dominion of Canada, what have you? You have men temporarily employed in a particular business and as soon as that is over they have no employment. But if on the other hand we made some effort to reduce taxation so that we could free some of this money which is now spent upon taxation, I venture to assert that your unemployment would dissolve like the early cloud in the morning dew.
But, as the previous speaker has said, we hear all these things but parliament never comes to grips with them. No one will answer the statement that I have made now. No one will meet me and try to disperse-if I may use that term-or deny or meet the arguments that I have made. I do not agree with my hon. friend the previous speaker; I do not accept his conception that we can abolish unemployment by nationalizing industry or anything of that kind; but I should like to see his arguments met and I should like to see parliament actually consider this problem instead of going on as we are doing day after day-discussing, listening, many of us, perhaps all of us, in earnest, but very few, I am sorry to say, perhaps none of us knowing where to go.
I turned over to-day by chance the last page of The Count of Monte Cristo. It is, I think, the strongest closing of any novel I have ever read: The Count sends his message and he says, "The greatest of all human wisdom is to wait and hope." Well, it may be something by way of a philosophy to go through life with charming ease and patience and say, "We shall wait and hope. We shall not do anything to solve the problems. We shall simply wait and hope." But I want something just a little different. I want something done to-day. I want some consideration of these problems in order that something may be accomplished in our own time. This is what I ask the house. This is what I know the country asks of us.
51952-155J


René-Antoine Pelletier: As I rose to speak
a moment ago I intended to say that the remarks I was about to make were to supplement the observations of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), but having listened to what has just been said* by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr, Deachman) I believe I should add something to supplement the remarks made by both hon. members.
Yesterday was May 1, and upon that occasion throughout the world many workers united in order to discuss their various problems. But what appeared to me most striking was the news which came from Germany of a speech made by Hitler on the occasion of his addressing hundreds of thousands of persons. This is what he said, in effect. "The so-called democracies of the world have been laughing at fascism for the past five years. They have thought that what we were trying to do was a ridiculous thing. Well, I say to them that there are no idle hands in Germany; there are not sufficient hands to do the work, that we wish to have done. Meanwhile, although the so-called democracies have yet to-solve their problem of unemployment, they presume to laugh at us." I say, because I believe it is a timely matter to mention, that in various parts of Canada we are seeing the rise of fascism. Why? Simply because of inaction. It is because these democratic institutions that we should like to preserve are represented by people who are either unable or unwilling to grapple with the problems we have to face. It is unquestionably true that in the so-called democracies of the world* -and I speak particularly of Canada, the country I know best-the problem of unemployment has not been solved, nor has any attempt yet been made at a solution. As the-hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has stated, the preamble to this bill is ample evidence that the present situation will be permitted to continue.
We set up an employment commission, and amongst the recommendations that that commission submitted I find these words:
Unquestionably-
"Unquestionably" is quite plain.
-however, the immediate effects of the introduction of labour-saving devices in particular geographical areas or in particular industries are often such as to deprive special groups of: workers of their livelihood through no fault; whatsoever of their own.
I believe that the employment commission has there given us a ray of light, at least some hope as to where we may look for the solution of the problem which faces us to-day. Many hon. members laugh at some of the
,2440

Relief and Agricultural Distress
arguments advanced by our group. We have favoured the payment of a basic dividend in order to remedy the displacement caused by technical and mechanical developments. I do not care how ridiculous the people who laugh at this theory may think it is; at least it is a concrete suggestion made in an earnest endeavour to meet the problem, and not the type of " policy " which says, do nothing at all.
I rise to-day not to defend fascism but, because I believe in democracy and would like to retain democratic institutions, simply to point out that if fascism has been able to gain the hold it now has in Germany and elsewhere it is because democratic governments were content to let things slide and to do nothing. So in Germany to-day, when the youth of that country have bread instead of the announcement of some individual that he is " watching the situation," they can at least .claim that they have got somewhere.


Mr. DUNNING:: Would my hon. friend say that the youth of Germany are getting better bread to-day than Canadians on relief?
* Let us in this discussion stick to some facts.


Mr. BENNETT:: They are getting as good bread-rye bread.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am not discussing the quality of the bread. I said that in the speech made by Hitler in Germany yesterday he maintained that there is no unemployment in that country.


Mr. GARDINER:: How many are in the army?


Charles Avery Dunning: Can the hon. member tell us how many are in the army?


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: There was no unemployment, either, among the slaves in the south.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Hitler maintained that there were not sufficient hands to do the work which had to be done. The fact is that : the situation in this country has come about because of the inactivity of so-called democratic institutions. I have no desire to see such a form of government in Canada. I should like to see this government do something; even if it is a Liberal government I would support it if it would do something concrete to alter the present state of affairs, to give the people of this country bread, not merely to tell them that the situation is being watched. I might bring a specific case to the notice of hon. members, but I do not , see the use of doing it; however, I definitely know that the Minister of Labour has been compelled to contribute out of his own pocket

for the subsistence of a family who cannot qualify under any governmental scheme. Of course we were told that nobody was responsible; we agreed that it was a sad ease but what could we do about it, there were no laws to take care of it, so we had to dig down in our own pockets and provide for the maintenance of that family. That is not meeting the problem; it is letting things drift, it is shifting responsibility from one place to the other. Unless we face our responsibilities the prospects of the fascist movement in this country are greater than perhaps we are willing to recognize at the present time.


Mr. BARBER:: I think it is quite apparent to all that the government has failed to meet Canada's greatest problem, that of unemployment and relief. The bill before us is merely to provide that some relief will be given for a certain period. This is now the third session of the present parliament, and the figures which have already been furnished this afternoon demonstrate that not much improvement has been made. Under this bill, I believe, provision will be made for some undertakings in the form of public works about which we shall learn later when the supplementary estimates are brought down. I suggest that instead of constructing public buildings a considerable sum might be devoted to the construction of homes. I have just returned from British Columbia and during the Easter recess I came in contact with representatives of municipalities and of some of the cities of the coast. I find that under the Dominion Housing Act no further action is being taken. On the lower mainland of British Columbia they are at present prepared to construct something like 1,000 homes, in my particular district over 100. They were given some encouragement at first but now they find that they cannot make any arrangement whatever with the loan companies or with those with whom the government cooperates. Whether that is the fault of the government or of the loan companies we do not know. I promised to bring the matter to the attention of the minister and through him to the attention of the Minister of Finance and to point out that this is the state of affairs that exists in connection with the housing scheme under that act.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is that on the mainland
of British Columbia?


Harry James Barber: Yes. I suggest to the
Minister of Finance that it may be the fault of the loan companies. At the beginning when this scheme was being put into force in

Relief and Agricultural Distress
the early days of the administration of the housing a.ct, the loan companies gave some excuse for declining to take any part in the scheme or to advance money. The Minister of Labour might make provision under the bill, in cooperation with the Minister of Finance, whereby, should these companies continue to act as they are doing at the present time, some arrangement could be arrived at with the municipalities and the smaller cities to carry on this scheme. It is true, some of the municipalities in our province are not in a very good financial position, while others are in excellent shape. Some have no debt whatever. The municipalities and some of the smaller cities have -conducted their affairs along business lines, having balanced their budgets for years, and are therefore meeting the emergencies that confront them in these days. I would suggest to the minister that he and the Minister of Finance might consider something in the way of advancing moneys through the councils of the municipalities and the smaller cities to citizens who wish to build -homes. The municipality would be, in my opinion, the proper body because they could collect it when they are collecting the taxes, and remission could be made direct to the department.
I note that there will be continued cooperation with the provinces in certain undertakings. I do not know whether all the provinces carry out these works along the same line as they do in British Columbia, but I had what I regard as a sad experience in the last couple of weeks. I refer to the practice termed patronage, and I believe it was the rankest example I have seen during the twenty-five years I have been in public life. In the Fraser valley district there is a provincial riding in which there will be a by-eleotion very soon. I drove through that riding and talked to a large number of unemployed on relief and to others who were on the brink of relief. I found that some of the straw bosses had called a day or two before and asked them if they would like to get some work, and they replied that they certainly would. They were told, "Well, if you will sign up as a member of -the Liberal Association we will see that you go to work on the twenty-fifth

" that is, last Monday. Two men on whom we called told us that they had come from Saskatchewan. They bad been living there some time and were not on relief; they were doing their best to keep off relief. They declared to the straw boss: "We will join anything to get a job; that is the condition we are in." And they joined up. The man -pulled a paper out of his
pocket and they signed up, and they were to get a job commencing on the twenty-fifth, which will last until election day.


Norman McLeod Rogers: They were not dominionprovincial projects.


Harry James Barber: It was road work. I found in travelling through the district that these men would n-ot even dare to attend a meeting in opposition to the government. I was informed that a man is posted- outside, theii names are taken, and they are blacklisted as far as employment is concerned if they attend such meetings. More than that, there is almost intimidation being practised, for the men seeking employment were told, "We know how you will vote because the ballots are numbered." I explained that though the ballots and the counterfoils were numbered no one would kn-ow how they voted-, but they were convinced that they had to go to the polls and- vote Liberal. Men were being taken out in trucks. On Monday -morning, the twenty-fifth, one of the straw bosses left in a truck with thirty men to work on a road. He is going to see that they vote, and vote right.
There was another matter I discussed with the minister before recess, and that was in regard to settlers from the dried-out area, settling in municipalities. That has continued, and no relief has been given. The municipalities carry these families until they have resided the required period, when the provincial government will contribute. I believe the minister said -this afternoon that farm relief in the drought areas came under the, federal Department of Agriculture. That means that a direct contribution is being made through that department. What I have suggested, and what the reeves' association of the lower mainland suggest, is that that relief should follow these people until they have put in the period of ten or twelve months, or whatever is required by the provincial authorities before they contribute. As it is, they are the sole charge of the communities in which they settle. I believe that ninety -per cent of them would make good citizens if they were given a chance. But some of the municipalities have been compelled to buy transportation -for them and ship them back to the dried-out areas, and therefore they go back on government relief; whereas if the relief followed, with the cooperation of citizens and different organizations, these people would become settled and would make good citizens.
These are a few of the suggestions I have had to offer and I can assure the minister
Relief and Agricultural Distress

that he will have my cooperation in any effort he makes to relieve the situation that exists in British Columbia. We would like the minister to make some statement in regard to a general solution of the whole problem; that is whether the government intends to meet this problem in some heroic manner this year, or, as one hon. member expressed it this afternoon, follow a "wait and hope" policy.


Malcolm McLean: I am quite sure that this committee and the whole country will agree with me when I say that there is no one solution which can be applied by this or any government for the difficulties facing so many people in Canada at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was in 1930-35.


Malcolm McLean: There was no solution but a panacea was adopted which made the situation very much worse than before.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And that is being followed to-day.


Malcolm McLean: Oh, no; it is mot. I will give the best evidence that it is not being followed to anything like the same extent: the tremendous improvement which has ensued in the last three years by departing from the panacea that was adopted and is still advocated by some, and allowing the people of this country a greater degree of freedom, even though the sales tax was increased, to increase production. The situation has been improved to an extent that my friends opposite and those in the corner are not always willing to admit. It is true that it is not as good as we should like it to be, nevertheless it is substantially improved. As to the crazy measures that my right hon. friend introduced, whereby he was determined to limit the production of wealth-why, he *even sent his emissaries to London deliberately to agree to limit by law the production *of wealth in this country, something which when it results from acts of Providence is a cause of mourning and distress. And he supported others who would limit the production of food so there would be less available for consumption. Surely no one can object to the use of the word "crazy" to characterize a policy such as that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were only fifty-five countries concerned; they were all crazy!


Malcolm McLean: Fifty-five or a hundred, none carried it out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They all did.
{Mr. Barber.]


Malcolm McLean: And still it was crazy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were all out of step except my Jock!


Malcolm McLean: More than Jock were not in step. The wise countries of the world did not do it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They all did. Name one that did not.


Malcolm McLean: The great country to the south agreed to do it, but Providence came along on the day the final decree was signed in Washington-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nevertheless they did it.


Malcolm McLean: In this country I was going to say my right hon. friend did not have the courage to enforce this law, but rather he had the better judgment on second thought not to try to do so. But Providence did it for him, and that is one of the main causes of the trouble which we are facing to-day. What did the other countries do? Russia paid no attention to it; Australia walked right through it; Argentina laughed at it, and Canada was left holding the bag, the surplus wheat that was needed in the world and that she would not dispose of. That policy brought about some of the conditions from which we are now suffering.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Surplus" the hon. member said.


Malcolm McLean: Yes, surplus as far as Canada was concerned, because the Canadian people could not eat it. My friends in the corner say we have in Canada so much; why cannot our people get it? But there never was any hunger for wheat in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm McLean: There was always all the wheat our people could consume for food, but by law those who owned it were prevented from exchanging it for other things.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Does the hon. member say that all the people in this country who wanted flour could get it?


Malcolm McLean: Anyone who
wanted to buy wheat-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh, who wanted to buy it.


Malcolm McLean: Well, what did my hon. friend expect? My hon. friend not long ago was pleading the cause of the big farmers who had a thousand acres and were limited to seed for 250 acres; of course they could not give it away.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I asked the hon. member a question and he avoids it very adroitly. He said there was no lack of wheat. I asked the hon. member if there were any people in Canada who wanted flour and could not get it.


Malcolm McLean: I say this, and I think it will be clear even to the hon,. member for Weyburn, that the lowest income people of this country during the past eight years, whether through their own earnings or through the relief given by public authorities, had no difficulty in buying all the wheat and all the flour they could use, because that was the cheapest form of sustenance possible, and among the best they could get. The difficulty was not that they were unable to buy wheat and flour, but that they were unable to buy the other things which other people had been producing, because they could not sell their wheat in the markets of the world. Wheat was selling at one-third of a cent a pound; it was not difficult for even the poorest people of the country to get sufficient wheat. I admit that wheat has not been used to anything like the extent that it would have been wise to use it; there has been considerable change in the use of foodstuffs in recent years, and wheat has been largely neglected. But I have got off the track in talking about wheat.
It is necessary under the circumstances to introduce legislation such as this, in spite of the fact that no single cure can remove all the troubles from which Canada is suffering at the moment, and that there is no panacea. My friends the socialists had a panacea three or four years ago. They were going to dominate and control the instrumentalities of production and distribution and all natural resources; they were going to control land and produce crops, control the forests and produce lumber, and distribute the crops and the lumber and the minerals. I should like to know if they would distribute some of the nickel they talked about so much to the people of this country. How much good would the nickel do them?


Mr. COLDWELL:: They could use the profits.	.


Malcolm McLean: But the nickel would have been disposed of elsewhere in the world, and the goods that came in would belong to the people who developed the nickel properties and paid the cost of producing them, who owned the properties and paid the wage earners and all that. My hon. friend's philosophy is to take over all the successful industries-


Major James William Coldwell: Why take over the unsuccessful ones now?


Malcolm McLean: -which are being run more efficiently than any government could run them. But my hon. friend was not going to run them himself even, he was going to bring in experts from England.


Major James William Coldwell: Permit me to correct
that statement. It is not true.


Malcolm McLean: I accept my hon. friend's word, but in his written and public speeches he advocated bringing someone like G. D. H. Cole. Can you imagine bringing a theorist, or some university professor-


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order. I said I did not advocate that, and my hon. friend persists in saying I did. I ask him to accept my statement.


Malcolm McLean: I readily accept the hon. member's statement, but I say that in literature appearing over his name and in speeches attributed to him in the public press he was credited with that design, so if any injustice is being done to him I am not the guilty party.


Major James William Coldwell: Again I rise to a point of order. I said nothing of the kind. I said that men with economic knowledge of the type of G. D. H. Cole were readily available to advise any government-not necessarily men from England, but in Canada as a matter of fact.


Malcolm McLean: I think the explanation is of the kind that makes confusion *worse confounded. However I am satisfied with it. Unquestionably the promise made by the hon. member's party at that time was that experts of that type would be brought in. Fortunately the electors had the good judgment not to give him the opportunity.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Was not my hon. friend's party going to give us the panacea of free trade?


Malcolm McLean: If the hon.
member for Weyburn, who occupies so much time airing his knowledge, will allow me to proceed, I have told him already that there is no panacea for this trouble by which we are faced. Seeing that he does not understand it, and I think he should, I shall tell him again. He comes from a part of the country where there has been an object lesson always in front of him every day of the time he is there, provided he has not been there more than eight years. He must have seen the lack of results that have been achieved in trying to produce new wealth. If he does not

Relief and Agricultural Distress
recognize this as one of the major difficulties facing our country at the present time, then he is indeed more foolish than I ever gave him credit for.
There is another matter I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Labour. He knows it well enough himself, but because of the circumstances under which he finds himself it is necessary that it be brought to his attention time after time in order to overcome the panaceas and solutions which so many would-be saviours of the country and of democracy are ready to make, in spite of the fact that they should know if they pursue their studies far enough their solution will make things worse than they were before.


René-Antoine Pelletier: May I ask a question?


Malcolm McLean: I shall come to the hon. member for Peace River in just a moment. He should not be in too big a hurry. We have in Canada vast natural resources which have been properly and efficiently developed to a great extent.


Angus MacInnis: Whom does the hon. member mean by " we "?


Malcolm McLean: I mean you, myself and the other fellow.


Angus MacInnis: There are not many of them over here.


Malcolm McLean: That is because you have neglected to do what so many of us have done, what the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture and many hon. members who sit around me have done. All you had to do was to go to a land office and plank down ten dollars to obtain the right to move on to a quarter section of the resources of this country. Any man who did that and made a good job of it owns some of the resources.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He might get a job as road inspector.


Malcolm McLean: The hon. member for Weyburn talks about getting a job as road inspector, but I say to him that the shoemaker should stick to his last. The preacher should stick to his congregation if it is worth sticking to. Apparently my hon. friend has lost faith in his occupation and seeks to get into a higher and better class. No government of this country has placed obstacles in the path of anyone who wanted to get hold of some of the resources of this country. Neither the government of my right hon. friend nor any other government has placed obstacles in the way of getting some of these resources. By the adoption of unwise
iMr. M. McLean.]
policies, by the building up of artificial communities, by the creating of artificial industries many people have been induced to move into the cities and to leave alone the resources of the country. The only way wealth can be created is from natural resources; that is where the production of wealth must start. A short time ago my hon. friend referred to something that Mr. Hoover said, to the effect that if people were more efficient, if they made better use of the country, they would be able to produce more wealth. However, they might do what Mr. Hoover and his successors have done, prevent that wealth from getting into circulation.
I want to say a word or two about the pessimism exhibited by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. He and his party contended that there would be no hope unless the people of Canada put themselves into the hands of himself and his friends. There would be government or public ownership of our natural resources. The hon. member referred to one or two corporations and the profits they had made. I think everyone will agree that those profits did not come from the workers in those industries, because they are the most highly paid in the dominion. I think it will be agreed that they were not due to the conditions under which these men work, because they are about the best in any industry. If the profits came from anywhere, they came from the prices obtained for the products produced. However, the government has a remedy against that condition by way of taxation. In that way this wealth is being redistributed to some extent.
One of these companies is spending millions of dollars in northern Canada, much of it in Saskatchewan, in developing new mining prospects and setting up mining plants. I do not know where the company could have got the money to do this work except out of the profits that had been accumulated at other times. This is just an example of what must be done to solve this problem. There is no panacea for our troubles.
I come now to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) who was in such a hurry a little while ago. So far as I know, for the first time he and his party have come out in their true light by holding up Mr. Hitler and fascism as an achievement for our edification. A large number of people in Germany are under military rule, and if my hon. friend and his party once have power and carry out a similar rule in this country, they will have to import men to fill the vacancies created in industry by taking men out in order to build up an army.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


René-Antoine Pelletier: That statement is incorrect and I ask the hon. member to accept my version of what I said. I said that if this policy of laissez-faire were continued, fascism would develop in the country. I did not advocate fascism.


Malcolm McLean: I still contend
that the hon. member held up Hitler and ' fascism to our admiration. He told us that there were no unemployed in Germany.


René-Antoine Pelletier: It was as a warning.


Malcolm McLean: There would
be no unemployed in Canada if we adopted the same system.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Eden said the same
thing in England the other evening.


Malcolm McLean: I have no objection to Mr. Eden or anyone else saying it. That does not prevent my using my own common sense in connection with unemployment in this country. Many of the people in Europe did not understand freedom and democracy. They were not ready to accept the benefits of democracy when the opportunity was offered after the war. They did not understand these institutions as we do.


Mr. POOLE:: What would we do with our unemployed?


Malcolm McLean: Not so long ago there were no unemployed in this country and that time will come again when the resources of this country are developed as they should be.


Eric Joseph Poole: What freedom is there for
the unemployed?


Malcolm McLean: If my hon.
friend asked that question of his friend Hitler he would soon be taken out and disposed of in some way. Instead of encouraging the production of the wealth which is so necessary to our country, instead of bringing about the development of our natural resources, our hon. friends offer some mythical scheme by which real wealth can be taken out of the pockets of the people and distributed to other people without its costing anybody anything. They offer a magic formula by which everyone will have wealth without doing any work for it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask the Minister of National Defence.


Malcolm McLean: The Minister of National Defence knows that if he is going to get appropriations for his department for defence purposes, he is not going to get it simply out of a drop of ink. My hon. friends over there are rather smart, but they do
not like questions to be asked of them. They want to spend their time reading quotations from books they do not understand or have not thought their way through. They have not yet come to the conclusion which is held by reasonable and intelligent people that two and two always make four. They have always some magic formula to make two and two eight, or sometimes three. If they would devote a little more time to thinking and a little less to reading quotations they would get along better.
It is not within the responsibility of the Minister of Labour to make easier for us at the moment the means of exchange of wealth or the bringing into this country of goods to pay for goods that go out, and so on this bill I am not going to advise the minister as to that. I do not think it would be in order in any event. I should like to back up the plea of the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) that as quickly as possible reductions should be made in taxation for the purpose of leaving that wealth with people who can make better use of it than any government can do. Let it stay in the hands of private individuals who will use it for productive purposes, rather than have it collected and spent by the government.
I should like to say to the minister, and I am sure he will agree with me, that in the disbursement of money in accordance with the terms of this measure every effort should be made to see that the money is spent for the most useful public works-works that will be of value and available for the enjoyment and profit and pleasure of all people. I do not think that buildings in large cities fall within that category. I do not think housing schemes carried out by the government fall within that category. The government cannot build houses for all the people; they must select the recipients of the houses they build. It is all right for the government to help housing schemes under strict regulations so that anyone who comes within the regulations and meets with the requirements can get the benefits of the scheme, but to say that the government should step in and provide houses for all the people of Canada, well, that is not the spirit that built up Canada or will continue to build it up from now on.
There are works that can be done to advantage at the present time. Labour is plentiful, and there is no great demand for excessive wages for the necessary labour to take care of these improvements that would benefit all the people. Equipment is reasonably plentiful. It has not been in use for a long time, and not much equipment would be needed. The original Hudson Bay railway was largely built by men with wheelbarrows and shovels.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
That was all the equipment they needed. Furthermore, I believe it was built at about as low a cost as it could be done to-day with much more modern machinery. The difference in cost between doing work by that method, which looks antiquated, and by the most modern machinery, is not so great as might appear on the surface. In any case the money spent in that way went directly into the pockets of labour, which was better than having the work done by machinery and using machinery supplies, the benefit of which would go elsewhere. I am not one of those who believe that machinery does away with the opportunities for labour, but it does dislocate the demand for labour and causes additional work to be provided in some other part of the country rather than in the part where the machine is actually working.
So Mr. Chairman, I believe that on highway construction and road construction through new territory, in our mining country, and in the building of parks around our cities and towns, and in other works of the kind, much help may be given. Those not on relief should not be prevented from getting work of this kind. Many who are not on relief have kept off the relief lists simply by their own efforts and determination, and encouragement should be given to them to stay off by providing them with some of this work at wages comparable to those paid in similar industries in the district in which the work is being done. That wage policy would also help to ensure that those who have jobs shall not quit them to get government work.
It might possibly help the minister if I gave him more advice, but I am reminded of the wise man who prayed something like this: Oh Lord, save me from my friends; I can look after my enemies myself.


René-Antoine Pelletier: As the hon. gentleman has stated or implied that I have tied up this party with fascism I should like to point out that the illustration I used to-day was in the form of a warning-and not at all an en-dorsation of Hitler of Germany-that if something is not done to save democracy in Canada, it is in danger.
My hon. friend stated that wheelbarrows and shovels were used to provide more employment on the Hudson Bay railway. I might ask him, why not use smaller and smaller shovels and wheelbarrows to give more and more employment?


Malcolm McLean: No; they used wheelbarrows and shovels, not to give more employment, but to get the work done more efficiently.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because the ground was frozen-that is the reason.


Mr. REID:: I think some of the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) are worthy of the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and of the government. I was very glad that he mentioned the housing program in British Columbia, particularly in the Fraser Valley. I too was home during the Easter recess and I heard a good deal about how this program is being carried out. It brought home to me the truth of the statement which is often made that the east does not understand the west and that the east is somewhat discriminatory when it comes to the matter of loans, especially in British Columbia. I found that orders had been issued by some of the loan companies to their agents in the city of New Westminster and the Fraser valley not to grant loans in certain towns and in certain parts of New Westminster. For instance, in that city there are two districts, the east and the west. The west is fairly well built up with sidewalks and schools, and the loan companies, instead of doing everything possible to assist in carrying out the guarantee of the government, that is providing 70 to 80 per cent of the loans, have of their own volition been discriminating against applicants in certain cities that have not been able to procure a loan. They have sent investigators out and picked out certain cities in a rather crude manner. I think that should be drawn to the attention of the government, and I would ask the Minister of Labour to join with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in order to induce the loan companies to do everything possible to encourage loans for houses in New Westminster and the Fraser Valley.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, there are districts which are house poor; that is, where houses are really scarce, and the Dominion Housing Act would be one of the finest things for putting men to work and providing industry with some business if only the loan companies could be jacked up and made to loan more freely in British Columbia. It might interest the committee to know that in the matter of mortgage loans British Columbia is one of the best provinces in the whole dominion. Speak to almost any bank manager and. he will tell you that there are very few delinquent mortgages in British Columbia as compared with other provinces. Therefore, there is no reason at all why the loan companies should discriminate against our province, and I would join with the hon. member for Fraser

Relief and Agricultural Distress
Valley in urging the minister and the government to see if something could not be done to change the viewpoint of these companies.
He mentioned one other matter, and that is what is taking place in the Fraser Valley on the eve of a provincial by-election. It was rather a surprising story, and I do not think any member would condone any such action by any government official as to inform those seeking work that they must Obtain a ticket from the party before they would be allowed the opportunity to give of their labour. That, however, is a provincial matter. I could not help wondering, while that story was being told to the committee, of the difference when I was on the other side of the house and we were dealing with the camps which were under both the provincial and the dominion governments, when I rose in my place and offered to lay my seat at stake if the statements I made regarding graft and corruption were not true. And while the leader of the opposition joined-at least nodded acquiescence-in the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley, I just thought there were times in this house when even he was not so concerned over the expenditures; because when an investigation took place during those days and an investigator went through the camps, the information I have is that the leader of the opposition was sent a copy of the padded payroll and refused to take any action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is in error; what does he say?


Thomas Reid: I said the information I had was that when an investigation took place-


Richard Bedford Bennett: What investigation?


Thomas Reid: -under the late Toknie administration-that a copy of one of the padded payrolls of the camp was sent to the right hon. gentleman, and that no action was taken by him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only say for the hon. member, and he knows this to be so-


Thomas Reid: I do not know it to be so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -that with respect to any complaint which was made as to wrong expenditures of public money I directed' the auditor general at once to deal with it; that action was taken by the auditor general to deal with it, and that recoveries have been made during all that period, And this report we now have indicates recoveries are continuing to be made of wrong expenditures.


Thomas Reid: It was a padded payroll, and
the man who made the charge about it was brought to Ottawa and then fired.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no knowledge
of a particular padded payroll, a specific one; but I do have knowledge of the fact that complaints were made, and I have knowledge of the fact that we passed an order in council and directed the auditor general to deal with it; further, that moneys were recovered back, and that those who were guilty of either padding the payroll or doing anything else with respect to the public purse were at once put out of employment. And the minister's report, which I have in my hand, indicates that they are still recovering moneys


Thomas Reid: There was something like
$72,000 which could not be accounted for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If that is so, why does
the hon. member not do something about it?


Thomas Reid: I have been endeavouring to
do something about it. I have endeavoured to bring pressure to have it collected. The right hon. gentleman was not very much concerned in those days, as he seemingly is now-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hurl that back at the
hon. member. No man has ever held public office who has been more concerned about every dollar of public money than I have. What is more, we took the proper steps to see that action was taken; if the hon. member were just as zealous in looking after expenditures in his constituency, it would be a great deal better for the public interest, and there would be less patronage in connection with what I was speaking about. I have not spoken on the matter before the committee this afternoon. When the hon. member for Fraser Valley was speaking, I said "Hear, hear"; for I was thinking of a question which is nearer this city of Ottawa that I am going to bring to the attention of the house in connection with patronage and the expenditure of public money.


Thomas Reid: I will do what the leader of
the opposition has done. I will hurl it back at him when he says that if I were as zealous about the expenditures of money in my constituency things would be different; for I certainly am. I will go back and hunt up that padded payroll, because, while he was Prime Minister, I carried a copy of it; I will go back and hunt it up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be very glad
to see it.


Thomas Reid: So far as the expenditures
in my constituency are concerned, I am not ashamed of any of them. I have been successful in keeping patronage out of the road work, and all other work, so far as my

Relief and Agricultural Distress
ability goes. I am against a system of a man having to pay a tax or having a party ticket before he can earn the right to work. Any time it is brought to my attention I shall certainly take steps to see that it does not happen in the riding of New Westminster.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Undertaking of measures.
René-Antoine Pelletier: This section deals with the power to appropriate moneys for the purposes of the act. There is one subject I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Labour, and it is this: When a similar measure was up for discussion last year, I remember speaking to the minister with respect to the Monkman pass project, a project which concerns approximately 70,000 people located in the Peace River country. As we find out we can get no assistance from any government whatsoever, I should like to tell the minister what has been done in that particular instance. I should like, too, to answer the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) who maintains that if people want to go out and work, they can easily find it. May I point out that this is one occasion where people have already tried to help themselves.
It is a known fact that there is no outlet to the Pacific coast from the Peace River district. For many years we have sought an outlet by railway. We have come to realize slowly, but nevertheless reluctantly, that at the present time such an outlet is not to be expected. The people of that country realize that if they cannot get a rail outlet, they should at least have proper motor transportation facilities towards the Pacific coast. When we found out we could get no assistance whatsoever from any government, regardless of promises in the past, the people of that country got tired and fed up waiting for the fulfilment of promises, and they themselves proceeded to cut through the wilderness and the virgin land of that country a highway which would meet the existing highway system, commencing at Hansard, in British Columbia. So it was that last year hundreds of individuals throughout the Peace River country, of their own accord and by public subscription, cut through fifty-five miles of bush, as a first step towards fulfilling the demand for an outlet from the Peace River country.
I mentioned the circumstances to the minister last year, and I felt this year that under the same measure some financial assistance might be given to help the project along.

He knows as well as I do that the Peace River country is undoubtedly the last great empire in western Canada. Such things as crop failures are unknown in that country, and the only difficulties we encounter are from frost, which lowers the grade of our product. We have never yet had to ask for the expenditure of money because of drought or anything of that kind. I am thankful that it should be so. A population of 65,000 or 70,000 people is certainly entitled to some consideration. The minister knows there is no outlet from the Peace River district to the Pacific coast, and I suggest that moneys spent in carrying out the project to provide a route to the Pacific would help unemployment and agricultural distress.
I understand that at the present time the government is supporting a project to build a highway, known as the Turgeon route-or possibly some other name-to the Pacific coast. It is my further belief that funds for this purpose are being provided by the Department of Mines and Resources with a view to assisting mining development in that part of the country. I understand the hon. member for Cariboo is enthusiastically supporting that project. May I point out to the minister, however, that no more than five per cent of the people in that part of the country could have any possible use for that type of route. I should like to point out, further, that the people of Prince George, which is in the southern part of the Peace River block, and within the constituency of Cariboo, are one hundred per cent in favour of the route proposed by the settlers in the Peace River district, and recently have joined with those settlers and have organized a Monkman pass highway association. I believe this must prove to the hon. member for Cariboo that they desire an outlet to the Pacific coast and not a trail which will help the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company to develop their interests in that country, to the detriment of the 65,000 or 70,000 people living in the district.
I know the minister is busy, but I should like to have him pay some particular attention to the project I have indicated, and to inform himself with respect to it. I mentioned it to him a year ago, but possibly he has not yet had time to go into the details. I hope that he will be able to do so in the near future, and that, of all the governments, out of all the promises, out of all the assurances that have been given, the minister will be the first to make possible an outlet to the Pacific coast from the Peace River country. There are many who would enjoy the benefits of such an outlet. We could obtain fresh fruit

Relief and Agricultural Distress
from British Columbia. We desire to trade with the people of that province. We need what they can supply. But at the present time produce to and from Vancouver must be hauled around by the city of Edmonton. If there were a motor highway from the end of the present highway in Alberta to Hansard, in British Columbia, the Peace River country would benefit immensely. It cannot be said that the project is impossible. Not even a ferry to cross the river is required. The people who started this road built fifty-five miles one year by their free personal contributions without one cent of financial assistance from any government. It is quite a level trail. It would not need any expensive machinery in order to build a decent road, and it is only 155 miles away from a graveled highway in British Columbia. I suggest that it is the minister's duty to pay some heed to the sixty-five or seventy thousand people in the Peace River country who have been located there for many years, who have been promised time and time again that consideration would be given to their demands, but who have not yet received any satisfaction.
I notice that the hon. member for Cariboo is at present in his seat, so I should like to repeat what I said a moment ago concerning the road which it is proposed to build as an outlet for the Peace River country. The people of his constituency, particularly in the region of Prince George, have now formed what is called the Monkman pass highway association to join hands with the Peace River association, and are solidly behind the Monkman project. The other road proposed would benefit only perhaps five per cent of the population of the Peace River country; nevertheless I do not say that the road should not be built. I think we need as much transportation as possible in order to develop our vast national resources. At the same time the most feasible, the quickest and the best way to bring some measure of assistance to the people of the Peace River country is to give the Monkman pass highway association some assistance or for the government to take over the project and provide the Peace River area with that outlet. There is no difficulty in the way; it is an easy route to follow, and it leads to a graveled highway in the northern portion of British Columbia. In this manner an outlet to British Columbia could be provided for the people of the Peace River country in a very short time.


Charles Avery Dunning: Before we go further, I should like to give some information which I have obtained in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) relating to the operation of the Dominion Housing Act in British Columbia. He was rather critical. I take it, that certain of the lending institutions who operate under agreement with the government under the terms of the Dominion Housing Act were not active in British Columbia.
I think I should say, in fairness to all those who have entered into agreements under the Dominion Housing Act, that what might be called the larger institutions of Canada, both insurance companies and other forms of lending institutions, have dealt far more widely with loans under the Dominion Housing Act than have those localized lending institutions, trust companies and the like, which we find throughout the dominion. In fact, it may very well be said that the larger institutions operating all over Canada are performing a much wider and much more useful service under the Dominion Housing Act than these localized institutions which one would think would be more ready to enter into agreements to meet their own local needs, being so much more familiar with those local needs and being so much closer to the people. That criticism is one not merely of British Columbia institutions; the situation is characteristic of the more localized institutions the dominion over.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for New Westminster says that those companies are discriminating against some towns.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall make inquiries, of course, with respect to those allegations; but I can say that British Columbia is now well in the van with respect to the number of housing units provided for by loans under the housing act. I got the April report just now, and I find that eighty-six units were approved for loans in British Columbia during that month, bringing the total in that province up to 593 units as at the end of April, 1938. Judging from the amount of prospective business reported through the housing branch of the finance department, British Columbia is taking advantage to an ever-increasing degree of the provisions of the Dominion Housing Act. One must remember, however, that the lender is investing sixty per cent of his own money or the money of his institution, or the trust moneys he is administering, and the department is in no position nor does the act give the minister power to compel any lending institution to lend in any particular locality or to lend on any particular housing security, but every effort is made under the auspices of the housing branch to thresh out problems which arise by reason of allegations that certain municipalities are blacklisted or that loans will not be made to certain areas. We en-

Relief and Agricultural Distress
deavour to take the matter up with the companies most likely to be concerned, and if one does not see its way clear to make loans in a locality we endeavour, through approaches to others who may be interested, to meet the need. It is not always possible to do so, I would advise my hon. friend. There are some municipalities in which the current tax situation, the assessment situation, the financial situation of the municipality, are such as to cause lenders to hesitate in making loans because, even with the dominion proportion, they consider the element of risk too great. We can never get completely away from that difficulty. But the Dominion Housing Act is gradually coming into ever-increasing use with every month which passes. In the two years of active administration of the law some fifteen million dollars worth of housing has been authorized under the act.
In reply to the criticism that it applies only to the higher cost houses, I would point out that 'the average loan per unit is down to something in the neighbourhood of $4,200, and it is constantly coming down as the housing act is being used for an ever-increasing number of lower cost houses. I admit, of course, that there is a field of housing which the Dominion Housing Act cannot possibly meet. Mention has been made during this discussion of the man who has not the twenty per cent to invest in the house in order to provide him with that initial equity, the balance being provided by the lending institution supplemented by the dominion government. In my view that is a separate problem. The low cost housing problem as ieveloped in the report of the employment commission is much more largely a problem of low rental housing than it is a problem of low cost homes to be owned by the inmates of the homes. However, there will be a later occasion to develop that.
The government is not unmindful of the fact that the present legislation does require supplementing. I do not say that it requires change. I believe that by pursuing the course we are now pursuing with respect to this type of housing, owner housing, and profiting by the experience which we are having-after all the act is only a little over two years in active operation-we can evolve an economical, satisfactory and sound means of providing at one and the same time low cost homes for people at a low interest rate cost and producing a very considerable volume of employment. During the period the act has been in operation the volume has been around fifteen millions, and I am advised by many members of the house that there are many cases within their knowledge in con-

nection with which loans have been accepted by the lending institutions, but not made as loans under the housing act. That is, the initial impulse towards the building of a home came from the housing act and from the publicity and information supplied in connection with it, but because of various circumstances the loan was not made under the housing act but was made by the lending institution otherwise. So that there is an indirect benefit from the operations of the act which I think it well to preserve and to continue to press. I give this information in response to questions asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley and others in the course of the discussion.


Harry James Barber: I thank the minister for the information he has given. In the particular section to which I refer, a number of houses have been constructed under this act, but I do not believe they exceed $6,000 -they range from $3,500 to $6,000. There has been no criticism or suggestion from the lending companies that the taxation in the smaller cities is excessive or would in any way interfere with operations. In fact, they have acted in a number of cases; but all at once this has ceased, and I suggest that a representative of the department should look into the matter. Is there not a representative under this act at the coast?


Charles Avery Dunning: I intended to send Mr. Nicholls, the housing officer in the department, to the coast because of the apparent need for advising many localities and many interested lending bodies as to just what the position was with respect to the act. A visit by Mr. Nicholls will probably do much to clear up existing difficulties in British Columbia and I am endeavouring to arrange for such a visit.


Harry James Barber: That will be quite satisfactory. If the matter is taken up with the lending companies through an officer of the department, there is no reason why the difficulty should not be cleared up, so that many of those who have applied for loans will be able to proceed. I wish to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River in regard to the construction of the road from the Peace River district to the coast. I believe the present government is pledged to that road and it would give considerable employment. As has already been pointed out, a great deal of voluntary work has been done by the citizens and some encouragement should be given. I was wondering whether the Alaska highway, which the premier of British Columbia is at the present time so anxious

Relief and Agricultural Distress
to construct, could be brought in under this act. I understand that he has made a well-beaten trail between here and Washington in his effort to persuade Washington that it would be a fine thing to construct a military road through our province. I was surprised that a provincial premier should undertake something international in scope, some agreement with a foreign country, without going through the federal government. Perhaps the minister could enlighten me on that. There may be some understanding, perhaps a contribution under this act towards the Alaska highway, known as the military road, through our province.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not able at the
moment to add to the information already possessed by my hon. friend with respect to the Alaska highway. I should like, however, to discuss the references made to the importance of a Peace River outlet. Highway connection with the Peace River is, I believe, appreciated on all sides of the house. It has been brought forward by the hon. member for Cariboo on a number of occasions, and also by the hon. member for Peace River, they being the two members most directly interested in this highway communication. As a matter of fact, in the joint arrangement with British Columbia last year there was provision for the construction of a road in the Peace River district.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Does the minister
refer to the grants given by the mines branch to develop mines?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, there has been a contribution from the mines branch.


René-Antoine Pelletier: No money has been
expended on a direct outlet from the Peace River district to the Pacific coast. I was referring to the Monkman pass highway, which is the quickest and most direct route.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There has been no expenditure on that section of the proposed highway. I might also refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley with regard to discrimination in giving employment on highway work now in progress in British Columbia. I said at the time that I did not believe it was a dominion-provincial project to which he had reference. As a matter of fact, in all our agreements with the provinces covering joint works, there is a clause, which was in effect under the previous administration and which has been continued, providing that in the granting of employment there shall not be discrimination by reason of race, religion or previous political affiliation; and wherever we have received complaints that
there has been discrimination in these joint projects we have had them investigated immediately and attempted to rectify any irregularity that has occurred. I can say with assurance that the work to which the hon. gentleman has referred, now in progress, is not work to which the dominion is contributing.


Harry James Barber: It is on the trans-Canada
highway.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That may well be, but
there are sections of the trans-Canada highway to which the dominion is not contributing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We contribute for the
purpose of bringing it up to standard.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The sections to which we
contribute are assisted to the extent of fifty per cent. Actually, our agreement with British Columbia expired on March 31 of this year, so that at the present time we are not contributing to any highway work now being carried on in that section.


Harry James Barber: In connection with the
highway, will there be an agreement with the province, as in the past, under which the work will be distributed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. That has been the
case in the past, but I cannot say what will constitute the form of the new agreement with the province in the coming year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are two or three
matters about which I wish to speak briefly, first with respect to the Monkman pass highway. It was common ground by all parties in this house that there should be an outlet from the Peace River area to the coast. The former Liberal government was committed to finding an outlet. The late government appointed a commission which made a report and they were in favour of an outlet being provided when financial conditions permitted.


Mr. STIRLING:: A rail outlet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. It is quite clear
that under present economic conditions the government is not in a position to undertake a rail outlet. At least that is the view which has been expressed by members of the administration, and I believe it is not an unsound one. Certainly during the years from 1930 to 1935 there was no possibility of money being found for that purpose. But there is no reason why a decent highway should not be provided, having regard to the number of people who are without opportunity to get to the coast, and who certainly cannot reach the Atlantic coast and the prairie communities under any reasonable conditions. There has been a rough survey made of what is known as the Monkman pass location extending over

Relief and Agricultural Distress
a distance of about 131 miles from Rio Grande to Hansard. That is Rio Grande in Canada, not the Rio Grande between Mexico and Texas. It would cost a substantial sum of money to make that into a passable highway. But I really think that the people who have made their home there and carried on development and made an annual contribution to our national wealth very large in proportion to their numbers, should have some way of getting out.
I think I could indicate from the records that we do incur some substantial responsibility when we permit people to locate in such areas and build up communities. That has been so in this case. The number of people, given as sixty to seventy thousand, is a little larger than I expected, but I am told that they are actually dependent upon some form of vehicular transportation other than by. rail or water for the purpose of getting to the coast. They cannot get out by our merely giving some little assistance to open up a mining claim or connect them with some locality a few miles distant, because they are scattered over what is known as the Peace River area, and there is no way I can conceive of from my investigation by which they can market their products except by coming down to Rio Grande and from there a distance of 131 miles to a place called Hansard. There are no large streams to bridge, no great difficulties to overcome. I am speaking now from the reports which were received, which may or may not be wholly accurate; it may be that a survey has been made since.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was for a railway?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that was not for the railway; that was for a highway, because when we felt that a railway was impossible from the standpoint of cost we had investigation made with respect to the possibility of a highway. I commend to the minister a careful consideration of that situation. I believe these people have a claim upon us, and it would afford work for a large number of people in a territory with a fairly reasonable climate, and would have the merit of being an expenditure for an extremely desirable if not necessary project. I say to the minister frankly that had the late government had the opportunity with improving revenues, provision would have been made by highway to give these settlers an outlet to the coast, until such time as it became possible to construct a railway. How much time will elapse before that is possible, I do not know.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Was the highway survey ever tabled in the house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; what was tabled in the house was the report made by the representatives of the railways and the province.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not seen the other report at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it could hardly be dignified by the name of a report. It was an indication that, failing any other method, it would be possible to traverse the area from Rio Grande to Hansard with a highway at not too great an expense. In the building of every railway you have what is called a reconnaissance survey; someone makes a preliminary reconnaissance before a survey is made for the line. This would be a reconnaissance, and it indicated that the task of constructing a road would not be too difficult.
The second point to which I wish to direct attention arises out of observations made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). I confess I am sensitive upon that question and perhaps I indicated it too readily. The truth is that when we made agreements with the provinces we did not make them with the municipalities, and we insisted on three- not one, or two, but three-methods being followed to protect the exchequer. This had never been done before. I think it is still continued. They were: (1) The certificate of the municipality or spending authority; (2) the province had to give its certificate or there was no money payable; and (3) we insisted on the auditor general making a pre-audit before a dollar was paid. I was able to produce in this chamber original documents showing the method pursued with respect to pre-audit by the auditor general, stamped with the initials of an official of his department, and the comptroller of the treasury informed me definitely that no cheque issued in any case unless and until those prerequisites had been observed.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: That was after my right hon. friend had been in office a couple of years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no couple of years about it; just as soon as we saw that the expenditures were not emergency expenditures we called in the auditor general, and finally passed an order in council-he did not think otherwise he had the authority; the question did not arise out of the British Columbia situation at all; it was in the east-and it then became apparent that the auditor general was satisfied that unwarranted payments had been made notwithstanding the certificate of the provinces. That is the reason that to-day the dominion is making its claim against the

Relief and Agricultural Distress
provinces for these moneys, and there will be found in the report made by Mr. Hereford which just came down on Friday, these words:
Considerable progress has been made during the past year in bringing about satisfactory adjustment of claims as computed by the auditor general against the provinces.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is postnaudit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but against the
provinces, because the provinces had given their certificate. We would not have a claim against the provinces at all if we had not insisted on the conditions mentioned. But they gave their certificate over the signature of, usually, a responsible minister.
The balance shown as pending settlement in the province of British Columbia is due to a report recently made by the auditor general, which is at the present time receiving the province's attention.
Explanatory correspondence is being continuously carried on with the respective provinces to bring about satisfactory settlement of claims as reported by the auditor general.
In addition to examinations conducted by the auditor general investigations have been carried out by the Unemployment Relief Branch and the provincial authorities which have resulted in refunds being made to the dominion in adjustment of various overpayments.
On page 15 of this report there is an indication of the amounts still unpaid, about which claims are made, and in British Columbia it amounts to the enormous sum of over $2,000,000. The circumstances to which the hon. member for New Westminster has referred are in part responsible for that. It did not all arise under one administration either; it was apparently a definite effort on the part of some persons to obtain money and use it for purposes that were not authorized, and notwithstanding that certificates were given they were given without an analysis of the figures to the extent that was proper.
The last point to which I wish to direct the attention of the minister is this: Section 3 with which we are now dealing contemplates the expenditure of large sums of money. I think the minister should give us some indication of how these moneys are to 'be expended, at least more than is indicated in the section itself. I think the committee is entitled to some explanation as to how these moneys are to be utilized. All that is said at the moment is:
The governor in council may out of moneys appropriated by parliament authorize the execution of such undertakings as the governor in council may determine to be in the general interests of Canada and requisite for the purposes of this act, and for such purposes
may authorize the performance of such acts and the execution of such agreements and contracts as the governor in council may deem necessary and expedient.
Then follows a provision with respect to the utilization of the services of those who are on relief. I have a large volume of correspondence directed to the fact that patronage has become almost an intolerable evil with respect to these expenditures. I have had sufficient experience to appreciate and realize the difficulties that the minister has to meet, and it was for that reason that I welcomed so warmly the Statement made the other day by the Prime Minister with respect to public expenditures. If these were normal times; if the buoyant revenues were being obtained by slight taxation instead of taxation as heavy as in most countries-notwithstanding what may be said, we have a multiplicity of taxing authorities and the aggregate of taxation, direct and indirect, upon the individual in Canada is very heavy-conditions might be different. It is unfair to say that those who contribute largely shall have their money used for the purpose of providing employment for their political opponents, while their friends are debarred from thus being employed. There is no adequate answer that can be made to that argument, and I therefore applauded the observations made the other day by the Prime Minister.
However, I was a little disappointed to receive a communication on Thursday last indicating that in connection with the cleaning up of the old camp at Long Branch, instead of employment being given to those on relief or to returned men, the head of the Liberal party in that locality was allocating work to individuals while others could not get it. These gentlemen wrote me complaining vigorously that they were thus being passed over, especially in view of the observations that had been made in this house. During the course of his estimates I shall giv.e the minister a considerable number of cases that have arisen during the past year, some of which I think merit the use of strong language. It seems to me to be manifestly unfair that when we are dealing with the problems of relief and poverty and hardship, the taxpayers of the country should be told that their taxes can be used only for one purpose, that is for providing employment for those who support the government. I hope the minister will see to it that the declaration which was made the other day-which after all does not go much further than the provisions in the agreements which the hon. gentleman inherited; with respect to expenditures jointly by the provinces



Relief and Agricultural Distress
and the dominion the agreements contained a provision inserted by the former government that there should be no discrimination-


Norman McLeod Rogers: That has been continued.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am subject to correction, but so far as I recall there has been no modification of that provision; it still stands.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall not anticipate the discussion on the estimates, but perhaps I might refer to one instance in the hon. gentleman's own city. There was a large expenditure involved in connection with the old Fort Henry repairs and a certain number of the people who were unable to get work were scrutinized closely. I noticed in some of the papers that have been brought down the name of one who has to do with the corporation that had the contract, the Frid Construction Company. I notice that his signature was good enough to secure employment, not only in connection with this work but in connection with the airport a/t Trenton. I shall speak of this at the appropriate time, but I hope the minister will take such steps as may be necessary to make it understood that this is something which is meant, if I may use that word.
Do not for one moment think I have no understanding of the difficulties that a minister of labour in particular has to overcome, especially a minister of labour who is serving his first term in the House of Commons. I know his difficulties; but I suggest to him that if he takes a firm stand, while he may lose a friend or two he will at least go to bed at night with his own self-respect, which is very important even though one is a minister. I think that will be found to be so, and I do ask the minister to look into these matters because I feel great unfairness has been done in many cases. That is why I think we are entitled to rather fuller information than the minister has given us thus far in connection with the contemplated expenditures under section 3. His answer is that they will be apparent when the estimates are brought down. That is true, but it is true only in part. That will not indicate in any sense what is in the mind of the government, except with respect to the extent of the expenditure. The complaint was made very vigorously from this side of the house in days gone by that the information was not forthcoming to the extent to which representatives of the people should have it in connection with expenditures of this kind. There is one other matter to which attention might be directed, but I think it can stand this afternoon to be dealt with when the estimates are before us.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There are one or two questions which have been raised by the leader of the opposition with which I should like to deal. The first was as to the information which might now properly be given to the committee with respect to expenditures to be made under this bill when it becomes operative. Obviously we cannot present at this stage the estimates which will cover the expenditures under this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quite agree as to the estimates, but the minister could give the details of the general purposes and policy of the government.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I indicated the other day, so far as it was possible, the general directions of the expenditures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pretty general.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Some were announced in the speech from the throne, and others will be continued because they are inherent to the problem itself. I refer particularly to grants in aid to the provinces. As to the works to be carried on, all one can say at this stage is what I have stated already on a number of occasions. Under this bill and in the estimates of the various departments provisions will be made for works, not essentially as relief works but rather for the purpose of conservation and development. The precise amounts that will be spent in this connection will be made available when the supplementary estimates are brought down. I may remind the leader of the opposition that when his own legislation was in force we were under the greater disadvantage of not having even supplementary estimates which set out the direction in which these various expenditures would be made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is not much difference in governor general's warrants.


Norman McLeod Rogers: They have been confined to drought relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, for other purposes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Very largely, so far as the larger amounts are concerned.
The next point is that employment is provided on relief works only to the friends of one political party. I think it is and has always been common ground in this house that there should not be discrimination in the employment given on works carried out under this legislation. It is quite true, as he has stated, that the clause providing against discrimination under his own administration has been continued under the present administration, and I think I can assure him that that clause has been observed as scrupulously
fMr. Bennett.]

Relief and Agricultural Distress
in the one case as in the other. He has referred to one or another of particular cases, and I would say this to him, that I have never failed to make inquiry into any charges which have been brought to my attention, and for that reason I have not failed to sleep in the manner he has mentioned. But if he has further information I wish he would give it to me, and I shall be very glad to make the necessary investigation at once, the more so if the charges relate to my own constituency. The work done at Fort Henry, as a matter of fact, is not in the city of Kingston, but it does affect the employment in the city of Kingston, and I do not raise that point at all because the work is being done so close to Kingston that obviously it affects employment in that city.
The work done is under the joint works agreement with the Ontario government. The contract is let by the Ontario government and approved by the representative of the dominion government. The work is done under the provision which requires that at least fifty per cent of those working on the project shall be taken from the relief rolls, and I have given explicit instructions to all our inspectors in all provinces that that provision shall be carried out scrupulously. So far as I know, there has not been any examination of the political allegiance of those who have been taken from the relief rolls. Otherwise the agreement provides that those employed shall be taken where possible through the Employment Service of Canada. The Employment Service of Canada, as my hon. friend is fully aware, is effectively under provincial administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Although we maintain it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Although we maintain it to a limited extent, actually our expenditure for the employment service is only about thirty per cent of the total cost. I am giving that figure offhand, but I do not think it is in excess.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as that is concerned, what we provide is equal to supplying the requirements of the service.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, yes, but I am speaking of the provisions of the agreement under which employment is given on these joint works. Certainly any information which may be in the possession of any member of this house and which ought to be brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour, I shall be glad to receive, and I can assure the leader of the opposition that I shall not hesitate to follow through any investigation of that kind.
51952-156J


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is gratifying to me to hear the remarks that have just been made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). Coming as I do from the province of New Brunswick, where we are working under a different arrangement from that in any other province of the dominion, I think the minister's remarks are more apropos to New Brunswick than to any other part of Canada. As he knows, in New Brunswick we have not had relief as it has been given in other sections of Canada. We have been working under special grants, not grants in aid, but special grants for works. In 1936 I called the attention of the minister to the fact that in my province there were discrepancies so far as the spending of money for relief purposes or for aid was concerned. Speaking in a general way, in my own constituency it has been almost impossible for men who have not been supporters of the present government to receive work of even the most menial kind, such as pick and shovel work on the road. I call the minister's attention to this, and I am well satisfied that if he could give these matters his personal attention, such things would not be; but it is left mostly to the local politicians or the head of a local committee, who select their own party followers to do all this work, so much so that this state of affairs has become notorious in different parts of New Brunswick, and certainly it is notorious in my own constituency. Conservatives have not been allowed to work on the highways. We have hard-surfaced roads in the province, in the surfacing of which we have been assisted more or less by the dominion government, and the large construction companies get lists of men from the head of the Liberal organization in the different sections of the province where the work is being done. This has been quite general throughout the province, and it is most unfair, particularly in New Brunswick, where there are no relief rolls from which to select the men.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Reverting to the statement of the Minister of Finance with respect to the extension of facilities under the Dominion Housing Act into British Columbia, is the minister able to tell us if any of these facilities are being extended into Vancouver island?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot say offhand. I think there are loans on Vancouver island, but I shall ascertain that for my hon. friend.


James Samuel Taylor: Will the minister instruct Mr. Nicholls to extend his services into Vancouver island?


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Howard Charles Green: Arising out of the statement made by the Minister of Finance, is it the opinion of the government that a low rental housing scheme would be covered by this unemployment act, or would special legislation be necessary? I refer more particularly to a scheme such as that recommended by the national employment commission.


Charles Avery Dunning: The question is a little difficult because it involves government policy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question was whether the work could be done under this section.


Charles Avery Dunning: A certain type of scheme could, but other types could not. It is largely a question of the type of scheme that is decided upon.


Howard Charles Green: Would a scheme such as that recommended by the national employment commission be covered by this act?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am doubtful.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The leader of the
opposition mentioned three projects, and in reply the Minister of Labour mentioned only two. I would like to point out that the leader of the opposition mentioned the Monkman pass highway association. Much as I appreciate the remarks of the minister that the government was very much concerned with the plight of the people of the Peace River country-


The CHAIRMAN:: It is six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, just
before the committee rose at six o'clock, I had begun to say a few words on the Monk-man pass highway association. One thing I want to make clear at the outset is that in discussing a highway outlet to the Pacific coast it must not be thought I have overlooked the fact that we have long been pressing for a railway outlet from the Peace River country to the Pacific coast. But the remarks I am making now are applicable to the legislation before us, which is designed to alleviate agricultural distress and relieve unemployment. The people of that part of Canada look forward to the day when their dream of a railway outlet to the Pacific coast will be realized, and in that connection I might say that I have brought down to the chamber resolutions passed by various boards of trade, particularly the Peace River board

of trade, the whole tenor of which is this: After a great many "whereases," if I may use the phraseology of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), here is one resolution which says:
Be it further resolved that it is now high time that our parliament be advised that Vancouver is not the only spot on our Pacific shore at which an ocean liner can dock, and that the people of the north are quite impatient of being told there is no money for our enterprise while we watch the slow conversion of Montreal into the Jerusalem of Canada with its jasper walls, pearly gates, streets of gold and transparent glass, and the shores of that hallowed St. Lawrence being paved with gold bricks from this New Jerusalem to the sea.
Similar resolutions have been passed by various boards of trade in the Peace River country, and once more I want it clearly understood that the remarks I am going to make regarding the Monkman pass highway association in no way alter my position in regard to the need for a railway outlet to the Pacific coast.
I would point out to the Minister of Labour that the leader of the Liberal party is definitely committed to providing the Peace River country with a railway outlet to the Pacific coast. I have in my hand a report of a speech made in Vancouver by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), dated as far back as July 8, 1930, in which he says that the construction of an outlet from the Peace River district might furnish employment for many now out of work. So, as far back as 1930, the minister's own leader was under the impression that an outlet to the Pacific coast might furnish employment for many now out of work. I realize that the present Minister of Labour may not be fully acquainted with what has taken place in the past concerning an outlet from the Peace River country to the Pacific coast, but I may tell him that the Prime Minister is very well acquainted with the various projects that have been discussed from time to time, and I feel sure that the minister, after consulting with the Prime Minister, should be in a position to give us a definite statement as to what our people in the Peace River country may expect.	_	_
With reference to the highway which it is now proposed should be built, I mentioned the matter to the minister as long ago as last year, when Bill N"o. 80 was under discussion. Perhaps the minister has not all the information before him, so in order to make sure that the information is laid before the committee and that the minister may know what the people of that part of the country want, I have, brought with me a fairly large map showing the proposed outlet.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
This is a map of that part of the Peace River block which shows the need of the present highway in British Columbia, in the northern part of the province, and also shows the highway which comes from the southern part of British Columbia and runs as far north as Hansard, in that province, on the Canadian National railway. The gap to be built is a stretch of 132 miles between Rio Grande on the north and Hansard on the south. The construction of the road does not present any difficulties. People have already been over that road many times in wagons, and as the leader of the opposition said, it is not a question of attempting any engineering feats. It is quite easy to build the road, and I should be very happy to offer this map to the minister on behalf of the people of the Peace River country so that he will be in a position to know exactly what we in that part of the country desire.
Last year, when Bill No. 80 was under discussion, we were given no more idea of what was going to be done for unemployment than we are being given to-day, but supplementary estimates were later brought down and by item 302 the sum of $7,331,000 was appropriated as a federal contribution to provincial and municipal relief projects. That was only part of the moneys which were spent, and as the minister said this afternoon, not a single dollar of that was spent, I believe, to assist in the construction of an outlet from the Peace River country. It is true that the government has supplied some moneys for what will eventually become an outlet. I have before me a sketch of the proposed highway to which the present federal government has been contributing in some degree through the Minister of Mines and Resources. I believe it is called the Turgeon route. Instead of going eastward from Prince George, it goes westward and from Manson creek north to Finlay Forks, and then swings to the east to Hudson Hope. The proposed route, on which moneys are already being expended, is 600 miles long, but you know, Mr. Chairman, just as well as I do, how long it will take to build 600 miles if we are going to build only from thirty to forty miles each year as a measure to assist in giving employment.
I repeat that all those who are interested in the development of the Peace River country, no matter where they live, realize that the best and shortest route to give us an immediate and direct outlet from the Peace River country is the so-called Monkman pass highway. It is needless to go over the arguments that have already been presented, but I should like to point out that nowhere else
have people had the courage to get up and do the work of road building themselves when no government funds were coming from any quarter. The people themselves went about the country collecting food, money, axes and equipment; they volunteered to work and volunteered the use of equipment, and then of their own accord they got busy and began to build an outlet to the Pacific coast because the people of the Peace River country are determined that eventually we are going to enjoy the benefits of being able to trade with British Columbia. There is not a member of this committee who comes from that province who does not desire to see this project brought to a successful conclusion. Why? Simply because we in the northern part of Alberta, offer a market for the fresh fruits and garden: stuff of British Columbia, which is at present closed to us. To-day it is impossible for us to bring in these fruits and other products over the present route. We have to ship the stuff from Vancouver around by Edmonton or Calgary and then north again four hundred miles to the Peace River country, and all we need is a highway 132 miles long to give sixty-five to seventy thousand people the advantages which such an outlet would confer upon the Peace River country.
In addition to these arguments I should-mention that for several weeks past I have been receiving a large volume of correspondence from that section of the Peace River country. Letters have poured in from the Peace River block in British Columbia. All the residents in the Peace River areas in British Columbia and Alberta are united in their desire to have an outlet to the Pacific coast. They hope that before long the Monk-man pass highway will be an accomplished fact. I repeat that it is the most direct and the best outlet at the present time. It is not a matter of expending millions of dollars,", we are not talking in millions. We are content -at times-to let other portions of Canada, get the millions if we can obtain only a few thousands. W e have waited long and up to the present we have waited in vain. The people in that particular part of Canada are not people to whom only one provincial * government can be held to be responsible. As the leader of the opposition said this afternoon, the settlement in that particular part of f the country is made up of people who come1 from eastern Canada and of French Canadians-who left the industrial centres in the eastern United States to come west and settle this land. The country produces each year upwards of twenty million bushels of wheat..

Relief and Agricultural Distress
It is exporting all kinds of products, and it certainly deserves consideration by this committee and particularly by the Minister of Lalbour -when he makes out his list of moneys to 'be voted to help the provinces in respect of unemployment relief. At a later date I hope to -be in a position to thank the minister sincerely for having listened to our earnest pleas and given us some assistance. If he does so he will be, as I have remarked before, the first man in Canada to recognize the needs of that area of the Peace River country; and I am sure that, regardless of our views on other matters, we shall all be grateful to him. After all, all we seek is a little justice.


Mr. TURGEON:: I know that hon. members for many years have been listening to speeches in favour of the construction of jyhat has become known as the coast outlet jfnom the Peace River district. Quite frankly, 2 would not have spoken on this subject during this debate were it not for the occurrences of to-day, because I am of opinion that works of this nature are more readily secured by quiet endeavour on the part of the members backed by the endorsement and the agitation of the men and women who are particularly concerned.	I am
glad that the right hon. leader of the opposition raised his voice to-day in favour of this general outlet and particularly in favour of the Monkman pass highway, because by doing so he lifted the whole question of the Peace River outlet out of the slough in which the hon. member for Peace River placed it. The terms used by the right hon. gentleman were so different from those used last year and this year by the hon. member for Peace River that I decided to take part in this debate. I recall the speeches made by the hon. member for Peace River. I remember questions which were placed by him on the order paper last session and I was reminded of the words he used to-day in describing another road built through the cooperation of the federal government and the government of British Columbia; this government spending a portion of the -funds voted by this house each year since and including 1936 to assist in the construction of mining roads, ' in consequence of this government's then new mining policy, which was designed to open up new areas where mining was a possibility. He said to-day, in speaking as an advocate of the Monkman pass construction, that this government would be better off helping to build the Monkman pass rather than spending money-for what? What was the interpretation placed by the hon. member for Peace River upon the work which has been

done in that part of British Columbia lying north of the Canadian National railway line running from Jasper into Prince Rupert, the railway line which was the dream of those who tried to open the northern part of Canada and especially the northern part of Alberta and British Columbia years ago when the old Grand Trunk Pacific was designed and constructed, a branch of railway which unfortunately, although certainly not through the fault of the -people who lived along the line, has been operating in the red for many years? He said that this road work carried on regularly during 1936 and 1937 was designed to give a road to the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I repeat that.


James Gray Turgeon: The hon. member knows that is not correct.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I repeat it.


James Gray Turgeon: Then the hon. member is repeating what he knows is not correct. One question on the order paper which was asked by the hon. member last year was, "Are there any mining properties in the vicinity of Manson Creek, B.C., within a hundred mile radius?" The hon. gentleman did not take the pains first to find out whether there was anything, before he commenced to throw a slur upon the work itself. He asked, not if there was anything there, but if there was anything "within a hundred mile radius." He received an answer from the Minister of Mines and Resources which I shall not take the time of this chamber to read, two-thirds of a page of typewritten figures, giving him the names of the companies which are operating in that district; and he rises in his place here to-day and says that the road is built simply to provide a road for the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company.
While I am referring to this matter, let me say that one of the large companies, other than the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, which are operating in the district is Northern Ventures Limited of East Africa. Within a few months after the construction of that road from Fort St. James into Manson Creek, or rather, towards Manson Creek, Venture Exploration Company (East Africa) Limited decided to throw their lot in with that country because they recognized there a mining area; and from that date, September, 1936, to some months ago, this company has spent in that area in mining exploration over one mililon dollars. In addition to this and the Conosolidated Mining and Smelting Company, there are several other smaller companies, including a number of interests whose

Relief and Agricultural Distress
location is Vancouver. Discussing this very question last year the hon. member for Peace River spoke about my interest in that north country. It just happens that this does not mean anything. I know that when I say this members will say right away, "Oh, patronage." It so happens, however, that practically every mile of country through which any one of these routes would go is in my constituency; and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, not expecting an answer from you, but looking for one from the people of the north country, if the hon. member for Peace River-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the reason the
hon. gentleman is speaking so loudly?


James Gray Turgeon: Thanks very much for
reminding me.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is better to have
somebody who can be heard.


James Gray Turgeon: It is one of my faults,
and I appreciate the reminder.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a good one.


James Gray Turgeon: Incidentally, may I tell
the leader of the opposition that although I am going to lower my voice here I am not going to still it in the north country with regard to the hon. member for Peace River or with regard to the right hon. gentleman himself, because I remember that in the session of 1936, while I had meant not to speak on this particular project at that moment, I rose to discuss the Peace River highway. I did so because while sitting in this house, I listened to the leader of the opposition warn this government against spending any money on highways within the bounds of provinces, and you cannot build into and out of the Peace River area without spending money within the bounds of provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is
mistaken, but it does not make any difference.


James Gray Turgeon: No, I am not mistaken,
because before mentioning it to-night I looked it up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. member will find that we were constantly spending money within the provinces but not on highways, without the provinces assisting and aiding.


James Gray Turgeon: I am not sure that
the right hon. gentleman mentioned that. If he says that is what he meant, that he had no objection whatever to an expenditure by this government of moneys on highways so long as the provincial government joined in
the venture, then I certainly withdraw without hesitation what I said a few moments ago concerning his statements.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But we did that in
1930 to 1935.


James Gray Turgeon: Yes, but the right hon. gentleman drew upon his vast experience and warned this government against making the same mistake that he had made during the period of which he is now speaking. Be that as it may, my words will be heard within the bounds of the Peace River district and in other parts of British Columbia. This road work which the hon. member for Peace River has been so violently condemning was done during 1936 and 1937 by this government and the province of British Columbia jointly upon the basis of $2 of federal money to every $1 of provincial money. Let me tell the hon. member that I have strongly recommended to this government that that work should be continued during this year 1938.
I return to the Peace River highway itself. The hon. member mentioned the name of this other route; he said he thought it was called the Turgeon highway. I have before me a newspaper and a map showing the name "Turgeon" highway. The use of the name "Turgeon" on that occasion was the first time that I had ever seen or heard of that name being applied to that particular route.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is nothing
wrong about that.


James Gray Turgeon: The only thing wrong
is that in this particular article the writer who called that route the Turgeon route condemned it and asked for construction of the Monkman pass highway. May I digress here to say one word in an entirely different vein? This newspaper-


Mr. McIVOR:: Louder.


James Gray Turgeon: It is hard to please everybody. This is the Prince George Citizen, under a different management entirely now from what it was when this article was written. The fine old gentleman who then owned the paper and penned this article has passed to his reward within the last few weeks, and to his family and to those with whom for so many years he was associated I wish to say a word of respect to his memory. This particular newspaper article which calls this route the Turgeon highway has this to say. They are advocating the Monkman pass and the writer says "Unfortunately, Mr. Turgeon, the member for the district, is committed to this other route." He makes this proposal-and I have in mind what the hon. gentleman just said in the

Relief and Agricultural Distress
closing words of his remarks to which I shall refer again: If only we could have Mr. Turgeon support the Monkman pass and make a deal with the Prime Minister of Canada, and relieve the Prime Minister of Canada of his obligation and the obligation of all political parties to build a railroad into Peace River and substitute the Monkman pass, then, we would all be satisfied.
The hon. member must have read during the dinner hour a resolution prepared by the people of Peace River town, or Peace River Crossing as we used to call it in the old days in Alberta, which town is in the hon. gentleman's riding. According to that resolution the people there are not enthusiastically supporting the construction which he is asking for to-night. There are different ports on the Pacific; there is Vancouver, there is Prince Rupert, and there is Stewart; and the people of the Peace River district

I am referring now not to the riding generally, but to Peace River Crossing, or town-are rather inclined to favour construction through the Peace pass on to Stewart or to Prince Rupert. Just within the last few weeks they passed a resolution to that effect. While the hon. gentleman did not say so, I rather think that is the resolution which he is now reading in order that the people of the north country, having read all the other speeches he has made to-day and on other occasions with respect to this matter, will not think he is neglecting them altogether, will not think he is forgetting about the length of time that the people of the Peace River district have asked for a railroad into that country. And so he comes here to-night and reads us what I fancy-I may be wrong and he will correct me if I am-is an extract from a resolution passed by the board of trade of Peace River Crossing in his constituency.
Several things must be borne in mind when one is talking to this government-and when I say " this government," I mean the government of Canada-in connection with the construction of any highway, whether from the Peace River area or not. One of them is that up to this very hour all works of this kind have been done jointly by the dominion and the province involved. The dominion could not say to the province, " We want to build a road here and we will not give you our money if you want to build it in another place." The works had to :be done jointly or they would not have been done at all. What was done was done on the strength given to the Dominion of Canada by the new mining policy initiated by this government now in office under the prime ministership of the right hon. gentleman whose words the hon.

member for Peace River quoted to-night and quoted in the speech he made a year ago, trying to throw something back into the right hon. gentleman's face. The pledge he quoted, which was made some years back, was for the construction of a railway from the Peace River district to the coast. This government, having in mind not necessarily pledges but the necessities of the people of that northern country, were glad to aid the province of British Columbia in the development of the project which they wished to push out from Fort St. James towards Manson creek and which might run to Finlay Forks, and one result of that road work, leaving out altogether if you wish what it might mean to the people of the Peace River district, was that, while up to and including the first part of the mining season of 1936 the largest number of men ever employed in that whole Omineca area by private industry in the search for gold was about seventy-five, certainly not more than one hundred, last year, only twelve months after the commencement of work, the number of men employed by private industry had increased from under one hundred to over six hundred. Is that not something for the Minister of Labour to be proud of? Is that something which must be held up against him in this house and it be said that the government of which he is a member are doing this only for the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company?
Let me tell the committee something more. We have running through the province of British Columbia what is called the Pacific Great Eastern railway. I think every hon. member has heard of that railway. In years past the Alberta government-I remember this well because later on I was a member of the Alberta legislature-voted money towards the instruction of the railway called the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia railway, the intention of the Alberta legislators being to have that railway extended through the province of British Columbia to the coast. But the Pacific Great Eastern was constructed, or partly constructed, in British Columbia, and for years the dream has been cherished that eventually these two railway lines would be connected. From that several results would follow. The people of the Peace River district both in Alberta and in British Columbia would obtain that outlet which they have so earnestly desired for many years; and the province of British Columbia would be relieved of the burden resting upon it by reason of the fact that the Pacific Great Eastern, while doing excellent work in the small area which it serves, is not on a paying basis owing to the smallness of that area.

Relief and Agricultural Distress
Is 'there anything that would do more to bring about the construction of a railway in the future than the development of the natural resources of the country through which that railway would run? What are the natural resources of that country? The right hon. leader of the opposition to-day mentioned an engineering survey made some years ago by a commission consisting of a representative of each railway, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, and a representative of the provincial government who was the chairman. I have here a summary of statements prepared by the chairman of that commission. I shall not weary the committee by reading much of this, but he advises that of all the passes observed by the commission and their employees the one most suitable for the construction of a highway is that from Prince George almost directly north and a little west, down the waterways which commence thirty-five miles north of Prince George at Summit lake, to Pinlay Forks and down the Peace river as far as you might have to go. I found it impossible to secure money directly to build a highway into the Peace River block, so as the member for that district I did the next best thing that was possible, helped to bring about the development of some of the natural resources which the chairman of that engineering commission told me would unquestionably be found in that country. And that mining development in Omineca of which I have told the committee is simply a demonstration of the foresight displayed by the chairman of that commission away back in 1934 when he made his recommendation to me. His report stated:
The bulk of the timber and mineral resources will be directly tributary to this route and the largest area of agricultural lands, in the lower Parsnip and Finlay valleys and north of the Peace river in British Columbia, will also be best served by this location of the highway. This highway will afford access to 2,800,000 acres of cultivable lands largely suitable for mixed farming, 6,862,000 thousand board feet of merchantable timber, 4,800,000 cords of pulp-wood, and 7,000 square miles of mineralized areas, especially deposits estimated of over 600,000,000 tons of semi-anthracite and semibituminous coal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A great market for that.


James Gray Turgeon: I do not suppose the right hon. member means the gold I mentioned, or even the timber or pulpwood I mentioned, so I suppose he means the coal. We have in that area adjacent to Hudson Hope three things in combination. There is without question 600,000,000 tons of anthracite and semi-anthracite coal-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the Skeena field?


James Gray Turgeon: No; that is another coal bed entirely, mainly along Carbon creek, but along the Peace river generally. That coal has been analyzed here at Ottawa and it tests ash free. There is a market for that. If we can produce in Canada anthracite coal which the government analysts find ash free we have a market for it, especially when running right through that coal bed is one of the greatest undeveloped water powers in Canada. There is running through that coal area twelve to fourteen miles of canyon through which the Peace river rushes with all its force. And right alongside of it-although I am not quite so sure of this as I am of the other resources-is evidence of iron ore. You have your coal and your water power and the possibility of iron ore all within the same area. And right on up the river you have gold and base metals. Just beyond the junction of the three great streams, the Parsnip river, running northeast, the Finlay river running southwest and the Peace river, which is gouged out of the rocks by the other two streams, you find your gold in the Omineca country, which I described a little while ago.
The hon. member for Peace River said that the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company are interested in this north country. Of course they are. I am inclined to think that for many years that great corporation, like other large corporations, was not anxious that the great potential value of that area should be known. I do not blame them for that because they wanted to develop that country quietly on their own. They were not demanding the building of roads at that time, and it was only after we started a road and other companies came in and began to find gold in paying quantities that the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company made a request for that road. Prior to the time that I had a recommendation made through the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), the minister from British Columbia in this government; prior to the time that a recommendation for the construction of the road was made to the government and accepted, the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company had never said one word to me, orally or by letter, asking for the building of that road. Since then they have and they have been anxious to have it continued. I am glad that the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company are there.
It will be remembered that in the session of 1936 applications were made by the two railway companies to obtain permission to build a railroad into the Rouyn district of

Reliej and Agricultural Distress
northern Quebec. As the hon. gentleman behind me knows, the people in that district had been trying for years without success, perhaps as long as the people in the Peace River district, to obtain transportation facilities. As soon as it was shown that there were mining possibilities in the section, there was no more difficulty in obtaining the construction of a railroad. Both railway companies were anxious to build and vied with each other for the privilege of serving the people in the Rouyn district. Although I have nothing upon which to base a hope, I am hoping that before long one of the great railway companies, at least the one that is directly interested in the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, will see its way clear to commence negotiations for the acquisition of the Pacific Great Eastern railway and its extension into the Peace River district. My hope is based upon the success which has attended the efforts of this government to develop that northern country.
While this roadwork has been going on, another thing has taken place. I mentioned the Canadian National Railways branch from Jasper to Prince Rupert. That branch has always run in the red; it is still running in the red; but its operating income has increased very materially in the last two years due to the mining operations that have taken place in the Omineca country following the expenditure of these few thousands of dollars. I know that the leaders in the Monkman pass association will not thank the hon. member for Peace River for the manner in which he has brought this matter to the attention of the committee. I know the hon. member is a member of that association, of which I had the honour of becoming a member in the last thirty days.
I am proud to be a member of that association and I want to compliment its members upon the way they have gone about their work. However, I do not think I need tell hon. members that there are other men and women in other areas who should be considered. Let us deal in facts. A road cannot be built into the Peace River country for a few thousand dollars. Such a thing is utterly impossible. To build a highway through the Monkman pass or by any other route will cost over a million dollars. It is easy to say there are no bridges to be built, but how are you going to cross the Fraser and some of the other rivers? The same thing is true of the other routes, which will cost more than the Monkman route. The Monkman pass route cannot be built for less than a million dollars.
I do not want to detain the committee any longer except to say that I am not opposed

to the construction of the Monkman pass highway if funds can be secured. However, I am most bitterly opposed to those who are throwing cold water upon the efforts of this government based upon the recommendations, largely of myself and the minister from British Columbia, to develop the resources of the north country. I ask the hon. member for Peace River, as I asked those who are concerned directly with the association organized to bring about the construction of the Monkman pass road: In order to make certain that you have a short route over which automobiles can travel from the grain growing section of the Peace River district of Alberta to the Cariboo highway, are you going to sacrifice the interests of those people who live contiguous to the Peace river? Are you going to sacrifice the interests of nine-tenths of the people in the Peace River block of British Columbia who want another outlet and who want their country developed? What are you going to do with the people at Fort St. John and Hudson Hope? What are you going to do with the people who live all along the Peace river?
It has been said that a road by any route other than the Monkman pass would be longer. Last year the hon. member said it would be six hundred miles longer, but that is just a flight of his imagination. It is not anything like six hundred miles in its entire length, let alone being six hundred miles longer than any other route. The people at Fort St. John are just as much entitled to an outlet as the people at Grande Prairie, and I say this without having anything against the people in that community. When you are estimating distances, where should they be estimated from? Why choose Grande Prairie rather than Fort St. John? Why choose Grande Prairie rather than Hudson Hope? Why choose one point rather than another? If you are estimating the distance from an area to an important point, say Vancouver or Prince Rupert, you must take some central point in the area.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand it, it was not proposed that this would be a solution of the transportation difficulty. It provided only a temporary outlet for a given population in a given area. My support was directed to it entirely on that assumption.


James Gray Turgeon: I appreciate that. I am glad the right hon. gentleman mentioned that and, with his permission, I should like to ask a question. He has had serious responsibilities placed upon him. For five years he was Prime Minister of this country, and he knows, of course, of the crying need and the

Relief and, Agricultural Distress
necessity for an outlet of some kind for the people of the Peace River country. I would ask the right hon. gentleman this question: If without further consideration a government of which he was the head built a highway over the Monkman pass, would there be any use whatever for myself or anybody else to go to his government again and ask for another outlet from the Peace River to the coast? There would not be. That is the trouble.
I fully recognize and appreciate the feelings of the right hon. gentleman in this regard. Of course it is all right to say that this is just a temporary thing; it is all right to say that the idea is to give them an outlet, but the minute we give the people of the Peace River country one outlet they will never get another. There is no question about that. Therefore we must be careful in our decision os to what outlet we may give them. Therefore I say it is the supreme duty of the government concerned with that project, and especially the minister from British Columbia, to do just what he has been doing, namely to help in the development of the natural resources of that great north country. I know the people in that area have given a great deal. As I have pointed out to the Prime Minister and to other ministers, they have given so much that they have almost lost faith in the institution of government. I have asked this government-and to a limited extent they have acceded to my request-to do something not only for Omineca pass, but for the whole outlet, so that the thousands of people who live in the north country will regain their faith in man and in the institution of government. I have asked for that, and I hope their day is coming.
I was about to say, when the right hon. gentleman asked his question, that within the next few weeks-if they have not already started-a company will be drilling for oil in the Peace River district in Alberta, right outside the British Columbia town of Pouce Coupe. I am inclined to think they will be successful and will secure oil and gas-certainly gas, if not oil. If that takes place, all the conditions surrounding the question of Monkman pass will have changed. If those resources are found, a great natural resource will have been discovered, one which would be well worth tapping. But even if they do not succeed there are, in addition to the other natural material resources I mentioned, two known structures where, according to geologists, oil and gas are most likely to be found. Those structures have never been touched, and nobody knows actually whether
or not oil and gas are there. Geologists go so far as to say that they are. These two gas and oil structures are in the south western portion of the Peace River block, contiguous again to Hudson Hope.
It is not my fault if most of those natural resources, other than cattle and grain, are in that part of the Peace River district. I did not put them there. I am simply trying to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that they are there, and to see that whatever can be done by governments is done, so that those resources may be properly developed. That is all I am trying to do, and that is all that need be done. As I pointed out in the beginning, almost every dollar spent in the construction of the Monk-man pass highway, if undertaken, and every other highway in that section of the country, would be over my constituency.
I have been in the house for a long time. Before making his attack last year, certainly before making it to-day, and before trying to tie it up with the requirements and the necessities of a great mining company, I suggest the hon. member might have spoken to me, and ascertained whether or not we could get together. If what he had in mind was not a grievance against the government but simply the desire for construction, and if that desire could have been accomplished by a thorough knowledge of conditions, then I suggest the hon. member should have discussed the matter with me with a view to seeing whether or not we could get together and give relief to the people in the Rio Grande valley, Grande Prairie and in other parts of the Peace River district of Alberta. He should have ascertained whether or not by getting together we could help to get them the relief of which they are deserving, just as deserving as the people in the Omineca country, at Finlay Forks or at Hudson Hope.
I take my seat now in the hope that acrimony will be dissipated; that all bitterness may be dispelled, and that this government will continue to develop the resources and make surveys such as I have requested them to make. I have requested that the mining road through the Omineca country be continued, and that in the meantime a thorough observational survey, having regard to the natural resources, and all matters to which consideration should be given, be made. I do not refer to a survey costing thousands of dollars. My request is for an observational survey which would be done in addition to developing the natural resources of the country. The best route would be decided upon, and then this government and the government of British Columbia, if they worked

Relief and Agricultural Distress
together-if they do not work together this government should proceed to provide the necessary expenditure of between one and two million dollars-could build that highway out of the Peace River district to the settled portions of British Columbia, thereby giving the district the transportation system it deserves.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I was not aware that
parliamentary practice required the people to act behind the scenes in order to accomplish anything; otherwise I might have spoken to the hon. member. What he has said this evening is simply a reflection of the thoughts I have respecting the Peace River country. True, there are vast resources in the north country; true, we need a coast outlet. I have said so, and I shall continue to say so. I shall not say it behind anybody's back, but shall say it right here on the floor of the House of Commons, and keep on saying it.
I mentioned the project to the Minister of Labour, because the measure before the committee is sponsored by him. These are not the estimates of the Department of Mines and Resources. When the time comes to deal with the estimates of the Department of Mines and Resources I shall have something to say on the matter, and I shall say quite frankly and fearlessly that I am not looking for praise from the hon. member for Cariboo, or from any other hon. member. I am looking only for justice.
I am satisfied with these few remarks to leave the case to those who know it best in the Peace River country; I feel definitely that they are in a position to judge. I am not interested in praise, or anything of that kind, but I am interested in a definite statement from the Minister of Labour. That is all we want. We have been receiving promises since 1930; we have listened to patriotic pledges; we have listened to platform speeches, but that stuff does not go any more. We want to have an answer. We would like to know what can be done about it. I am interested more in a statement from the Minister of Labour than in the praise of the hon. member for Cariboo.


James Gray Turgeon: I should like to point out that when the hon. member who has just taken his seat spoke in this house on April 6, 1937, he said:
I have made inquiries in the matter and I have found that the idea of attempting to fulfil the promise by building a coast outlet was allegedly begun last year through certain grants. They have attempted to provide a coast outlet by building a road-
The hon. member said that he had been making inquiries last year and found the first effort to carry out a promise.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If you do not mind, Mr. Chairman, I shall try to deal with clause three. We have had a long discussion on the Peace River outlet, and while I am very much interested in the Peace River country and the building of a road through Monkman pass, and in many other matters discussed by the two previous speakers, the unemployment problem, extending as it does from the Atlantic to the Pacific, is, I think, a little larger than the question of the Peace River country.
The reason I wish to say a word or two is that the minister seems to have developed in the last session or two, a very wise habit of saying as little as possible, which is an exceedingly prudent attitude for a minister who is trying to get his legislation through the house to adopt. But we are thirsting for information. While the newspapers seem to be able sometimes to make intelligent guesses as to the intentions of the government along certain lines, we in the house are unable to obtain any information whatsoever. For some time past it has been stated in the press, for example, that the government intends spending $40,000,000 on public works projects. I do not know whether that is correct or not, and while the minister may inform the committee that the proper time to discuss that aspect of the question is when the estimates are before the committee of supply, I think when we are discussing unemployment and the methods to be adopted for relieving it we might well have a statement from the minister in regard to the policy of the government. It is all very well for the minister to inform the committee that he is following precedent or the action of the previous government, but really I do not think the present government ought to follow in the footsteps of its predecessor because we well remember what happened to the previous government in 1935. So I should think it was a risky policy when the policy of the present government follows exactly the course taken by the previous one. I should like this government to go the previous government one better. I would ask the minister to state frankly to the committee what program the government has in view for dealing with this problem of unemployment.
I think it is well to point out to the committee that this unemployment problem has been with us for the past eight years, during which time we have had three governments in power. In 1929 we had the commencement of what we might call the unemployment situation which is still with us. In 1930 the present government dissolved1 parliament, and we know what the result of the election of

Relief and Agricultural Distress
1930 was. Another government came into power and stayed in power until 1935. Then, from 1935 to 1938 we have had another government in power, and yet the position in regard to unemployment is exactly the same to-day, in 1938, as it was in 1930. In other words, I would ask the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister if we have made any progress towards solving the problem of unemployment when we are still doing in 1938 what we were doing in 1930 and onwards. What we are doing to-day is simply to grant relief to those who are out of work, and probably evolving a scheme of public works.


Mr. MARTIN:: We have recognized the
youth problem and have done something about it, though not enough.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The government have recognized the youth problem, but the fact that they have recognized a problem does not indicate that they have solved it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say they had.
I said they had recognized the problem and had begun to do something about it, but not enough.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They have recognized the
problem and are doing something about it, I admit, but what they are doing is training youth for positions that do not exist. That is the important point.
I am anxious for the government to leave the old methods that we have followed for a number of years and to do something more fundamental and constructive. I have been urging that upon the government now for a number of years. While I acquiesce in the policy of relief and in the policy of building public works to alleviate the unemployment situation, I think everybody in the house is agreed that neither of these two methods of dealing with the unemployment problem is in any way a solution of it.
I wish hon. members would speak as frankly and openly in the house as they do when they speak privately. I am not directing my remarks at anyone in particular. The hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deach-man) said this afternoon that he would like the government to come out with a definite policy for meeting the unemployment situation, but evidently the government are not anxious or are not in a position to do so. Possibly they have no policy.
I think when we are discussing in this chamber this problem of unemployment and its implications, we sometimes treat the whole question a little too lightly. We have unemployed in this country to-day to the number, I believe, of 400,000, and if that is
the case-and I do not believe I am overstating it-it is a tremendous problem from the standpoint of the industrial population. When this government came into power in 1935 they came into power on what one might call a rising tide of industrial recovery. We were in a period of improving times, just as in 1930 industrial production was on the decline. This matter cuts right across government activities because, if you take the last few years, we find that when the government left office in 1930 we were in a decline so far as industrial production was concerned, which decline continued until we reached the bottom, about 1932, and from 1932 or 1933 until 1937 we were on a rising tide of industrial recovery, with improvement continuing all those years. In 1937 we again reached probably the peak of industrial development, and we are now on the decline again.
Are we going to say in this house that we are going to be dependent upon what is done in the United States? Are we going to be told that if the United States spends a few more billions of dollars we in Canada may reap some benefit from what is being done in other parts of the world; that if Great Britain spends billions of dollars for armaments, some of which may be manufactured in this country, we may derive some benefit from her expenditures? Do you not think, Mr. Chairman, that the right and logical thing for us to do in this country is for the government to give us a policy of its own, distinct and apart altogether from anything that is being done by any other government outside this dominion? I am anxiously looking for the government to give its policy to the house. It was all right when they came into office in 1935, in a period of expanding trade, to say: We will depend upon foreign markets and trade treaties to improve economic conditions in this dominion. But now the position is reversed; we are in a decline, and I would ask the government at this stage to come forward and give us a definite policy of what they are going to do in regard to the whole unemployment situation. I think it is most unsatisfactory, after we have had an unemployment problem for eight years, still to think in the eighth year of the depression that we are going to cure unemployment by giving relief to those who are out of work and occasionally providing a scheme of public works projects, such as public buildings, and so forth.
The minister told us this afternoon, if I heard him correctly, that so far as public works projects, were concerned, what the government had in mind was public works projects having to do with conservation.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Norman McLeod Rogers: Conservation and development.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, but I should have liked the minister to state to the committee that the projects the government was interested in went far beyond conservation projects. For many years there has been advocated from all sides of the house a comprehensive housing scheme.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think this would certainly be a measure of conservation and might very well be included in such a program.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can I take it from the minister that in the measures of conservation he referred to this afternoon he had under consideration the question of a dominionwide, low cost rental housing scheme?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have already told the committee that the whole question of low cost or low rental housing is receiving very careful consideration. I believe the Minister of Finance has made a similar statement. As I said before, I am certainly not in a position to announce such a policy at this time. That would require a bill or an amendment to existing legislation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. The Minister of Finance stated this afternoon that if the government were to consider favourably a dominion housing scheme, it would require separate legislation apart from the legislation we are considering at the present time. But while I should like the government to proceed with a housing scheme, I believe that in dealing with the problem of unemployment we have to go even beyond public works projects, and I think the government as yet has no definite policy in hand to meet the economic conditions which now prevail in the dominion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member has said that he thought the government should go much beyond such projects as low cost or low rental housing. Personally I should be interested in knowing what the hon. member has in mind.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have not the least objection to mentioning briefly what I have in mind. I have referred to these matters dozens and dozens of times in speeches I have made in this chamber. I should like to see the government take in hand the question of hours of labour, increased purchasing power for the masses of our people, so that wages are at a level-


Paul Joseph James Martin: How would the hon. member increase purchasing power?


Abraham Albert Heaps: By seeing that wages were maintained at a fairly high level. I believe this could be done. I would see that we had minimum wages and that they were maintained at a high level. I would see that hours of labour were regulated, and I would be in favour of having a fairly low maximum working week so that we could absorb in useful productive industry many of the people who are out of work at the present time. I would be in favour of reducing the pensionable age. I would favour following to a very large extent the policies which have been carried out, I think fairly successfully, by the government of New Zealand. While we in Canada are finding difficulty in carrying out many projects we should like to see carried out, in New Zealand the government is capable of doing what we say here is impossible of achievement. While we talk about the difficulty of maintaining old age pensions even at seventy, in New Zealand the age limit is reduced to sixty-five and may go down to sixty years of age. Other parts of the empire provide pensions for old age. I should like to see our people at sixty years of age taken out of industry and allow the youth of the country an opportunity to be employed in some useful capacity in the economic life of Canada. I could enumerate man3r other things which the government could do or which, if it became interested, it could investigate with a view of making them part of the economic life of the dominion. Evidently, however, the government is not interested in the suggestions to which I have referred.


Mr. WARREN:: Can the hon. member
suggest, with, say a five day week and a six hour day, and a high rate of wages in industry, how anybody could be kept working on the farms?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. I should like to see the condition of the farmer improved as well. In New Zealand, where some of the reforms I have mentioned have been put into effect, nobody is very anxious to leave the farm and come into the industrial areas. They try to maintain on the farms the same economic levels as apply in the industrial sections.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have no industrial life worth speaking of in New Zealand.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Very little industrial life.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would say there is a fair
percentage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Practically none at all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then, if there is no industrial
life, the question my hon. friend asked is more

Relief and Agricultural Distress
easily answered perhaps by the Prime Minister than by myself. I would point out that New Zealand has a labour government which was determined to bring about these social and economic changes. I should like to see the government, and particularly the Minister of Labour, who I am sure is interested in these social problems, go a good deal beyond where he has gone so far during the past three sessions. Personally I am much disappointed at the little progress which the government has even attempted to make in dealing with unemployment. The session following this one will probably be the last of this parliament, and I do not wish to see the house become busy all of a sudden next year attempting to pass, on the eve of an election, legislation which might be looked upon as advanced social legislation. I would sooner have it this year than next. I do not care to see projects of public relief work postponed to the eve of an election. If they are to be started, let them be started right away, because a great many people who need them are out of work at the present time. But what I wish to emphasize more than anything else, and the reason I rose to take part in the debate at this juncture, is that I feel the government ought to enunciate a policy which will give a little hope and encouragement to the vast number of people who are out of work.


Howard Charles Green: Has the government done anything to modernize or to extend the Employment Service of Canada? In reading the report of the national employment commission I was struck by the emphasis they place on the need for a better employment service in Canada. Apparently that is also the viewpoint of the different provinces. The report shows further that the commission have been stressing this need with the government ever since August, 1936. In the interim report dated July 21, 1937, we find at page 17 these words:
Early in the commission's investigation it became evident that the first and most vital step necessary to the successful handling of employment, re-employment and aid administration problems is the development of more efficient employment services throughout Canada. The present provincial employment services are in practice unfitted to meet the exigencies of the situation.
Then we find in the final report made in January of this year that even stronger language is used at page 15 dealing with the machinery to carry out recommendations summarized in the interim report:
The requirement here, as pointed out on page 19 of the interim report, is the prompt modernization and extension of the Employment Service of Canada, this with a view to
a better linking together of employer and employee; to providing focal points for attacks on local employment problems, and as a means of gauging the relative degree of employability of those in receipt of aid. In discussions which the commission has had in recent months, general agreement has been expressed by all provincial governments-
Which seems strange.
-as to the unsuitability of the existing set-up, and of the restricted services, of the provincial employment services in fulfilling these vital functions.
My understanding is that the provincial governments operate the service, but they are subsidized by the dominion.
Then the recommendation goes on:
The commission wishes to emphasize the urgency for action. It recommends that the service be placed immediately under the direction of the dominion government, both as to controlling principles and broad policies, but with provision for the appointment of strong regional directors, and regional advisory councils, to whom certain decentralized powers would be given, so as to ensure adequate weight being accorded, and attention being paid, to the problems peculiar to particular regions. The success of any nation-wide program of local plans developed in order to disperse the remaining problem is undoubtedly dependent upon such reorganization.
I understood from what the minister said, in discussing the resolution which preceded this bill, that he was not prepared to accept this recommendation at the present time. Would it not be possible, at least, to improve the situation at the present time by arranging with the provinces for these advisory committees to be set up in each province to aid the provincial employment agencies, and would it not be possible also to strengthen the employment agencies by a larger subsidy from the dominion? It does seem to me that there is need for better employment agencies in Canada. Surely this government could do something at the present time to meet the need at least in part.


Norman McLeod Rogers: This question of the Employment Service of Canada is one that has been discussed before in this chamber. As my hon. friend may recall, I dealt with it at some length during the discussion of the resolution preceding the bill. The national employment commission did recommend that the Employment Service of Canada should be brought under national direction and control, and the suggestion was that by being so brought under national direction and control that service would be improved and modernized. I did not hesitate to say to the house some time ago that I fully agreed with the desirability of improving the Employment Service of Canada, but that I did not agree

Relief and Agricultural Distress
it was desirable that that service should be taken over piecemeal; in other words, I did not believe that it would serve to create efficiency in the employment service, having regard to the task confronting it, to take over the employment service in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and establish it as a national service in those provinces, leaving the service as it now is in the remaining provinces.
Despite the phrase quoted by my hon. friend a moment ago to the effect that the provincial governments agreed as to the unsuitability of the existing service, I am in a position to say that the provincial governments generally did not agree and do not now agree that the service should be taken over as a dominion service. That is particularly true of the more highly industrialized provinces of the dominion. The provinces that are willing to have the dominion take over the service are the provinces where the service is of the least importance; the provinces that are most unwilling for the dominion to take it over are the more highly industrialized provinces. I did suggest when the matter was under discussion before, and I think it is a correct view, that in the long run it would not be sound policy to have a national employment service in three, or four, or five provinces, and to have the existing system perpetuated in the remaining provinces.
I also mentioned, when the matter was under discussion before, that if and when we were able to proceed with unemployment insurance, the problem would be solved in the most effective way, because through unemployment insurance you have to set up, as a necessary part of the organization, employment offices in all the large centres of population, and those employment offices, by reason of their very continuing relationship with industry, would be in a position to render service superior to that of any provincial service, if, indeed, under those conditions a provincial service would be maintained.
That is the situation with regard to the Employment Service of Canada at the present time. I agree that if we are not able to change the situation immediately, there is much to be said for the improvement and modernization of the service. I am not prepared to say that the provinces, which themselves have expressed the view that the service does need improvement, are not in a position themselves to provide that improvement. In other words, I would not go so far as to say that improvement, particularly in the large industrial provinces, is contingent upon a larger contribution from the dominion government. As a matter of fact, the contribution of the dominion government to the

Employment Service of Canada does not run very much above twenty per cent of the total cost. Our contribution is $150,000 a year. The service is not an expensive one at the present time, and it could be improved in a number of provinces without a very great increase in expenditure.
If I might refer briefly to the points raised by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North, I would assure him and the committee generally that with respect to any program to deal with unemployment, I have given to the press no information which has been withheld from the house. Any stories that have appeared in the press have been speculative. There should not be and there will not be any official announcement of expenditure in relation to unemployment in advance of the submission of the supplementary estimates to the house. My hon. friend may say that I should at this time at least give an outline of what we propose to do in relation to unemployment. I think it not unreasonable to suggest to him that he might read the supplementary estimates of the Department of Labour and of other departments in the two preceding years. He will find there that provision has been made in a number of directions to deal with unemployment and agricultural distress. There have been grants in aid to the provinces. As he has said, that simply provides sustenance during a period of urgent need. There is also provision for works to be done jointly with the provinces. There was provision last year for training projects for unemployed young people, and there has been provision for relief settlement or what might be termed agricultural rehabilitation. There also has been provision in the Department of Agriculture for assistance to farmers in connection with feed and fodder. He will find that in those items in the estimates under the Department of Labour and the Department of Agriculture, regardless of whether the emphasis or the extent of assistance has been as great as he woidd wish, we have at least been proceeding along the lines of proved experience, and we have been touching this problem at the very points where it has been touched by unemployment policies in other countries.
We have lacked here-and I regret it- what exists in other countries, namely, an unemployment insurance statute, which after all enables a country to set up a statutory method and to establish an organization to deal with the problem as it may vary from one area to another or from one period to another. In other words, with unemployment insurance you at least have a flexible organization to deal with what may be a changing

Relief and Agricultural Distress
situation with respect to unemployment. But this government has sought so to arrange its fiscal policies and its assistance to industry in other directions as to assist towards greater collateral and ultimate employment.
I do not wish now to retrace ground I covered during the discussion of the resolution; but I think my hon. friend will at least agree that the policies pursued by this government with respect to the stimulus to the mining industry, and the gaining of foreign markets for our produce, have been policies with which he is in entire accord, and which certainly, in their successful working, have provided additional employment in Canada. There is no question about that; the figures prove it beyond contradiction. So that, although my hon. friend is perfectly entitled to say that we have not done enough in this direction, or perhaps too much in that direction, as far as the policies themselves are concerned, I would be interested to know from him in what other directions we may proceed than expansion of trade, stimulation of private industry, rural rehabilitation, public works on a limited scale, provision through direct relief for those who are actually in need, and, in addition training schemes which we trust will ultimately lead to the reestablishment of many of those in the lower age groups who are now unemployed. These after all are policies which experience has approved, and I submit that criticism should be directed rather to the application of the policies than to their merits.


Angus MacInnis: In the light of present day developments, does the minister think the policies which he has outlined, supposing we admit that they have been effective in some measure, touch the fundamentals of the unemployment problem?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As to what the fundamentals of the unemployment problem are, this house might debate for many days without reaching any common conclusion. I find myself largely in agreement with some things said this afternoon by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman). If we can employ our fiscal policies in this country so as to lighten the burdens on the agricultural industry particularly, that would be a move in the right direction. I believe something may very usefully be done in the direction of conservation and development works to improve the assets of the country and lead ultimately, one may hope, to greater employment in that direction. Expanding trade, gaining foreign markets through trade agreements, is most certainly a means of providing additional employment. But I shall not
deceive my hon. friend with the thought that as far as I am concerned I have any faith that there is any single solution. I believe we have something to learn in connection with control of credit. No one can reasonably say that with respect to that matter we have learned all that there is to be learned. We are living in a progressive society. But in all these things we must move forward step by step, making sure of our way as we go. There is no single panacea. I have before me the report of the international labour office on unemployment. It relates to all countries which are members of the international labour office, and all of them are suffering from unemployment. I suppose if one took the various devices and plans adopted in all these countries and put them together, it would include every suggestion put forward in this chamber in this and the preceding two years; yet unemployment continues in greater or less measure in these countries. And it must be remembered that in this country there has always been seasonal unemployment. In 1929, when we thought we were at the peak of prosperity, there were about 150,000 people reported by the bureau of statistics as unemployed during the winter months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is at the seasonal height.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; but in 1929 we thought we were prosperous; yet there were about
150,000	unemployed. They were not on relief-


Abraham Albert Heaps: They did not require it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Their savings enabled them to live.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Exactly. And they were moving from one seasonal occupation to another. I think it is true that the people of this country in the lowest income group, taken by and large, are better cared for than they have been at any previous period in our history. We should recognize that. My hon friends may well say that here and there relief allowances are not what they ought to be, but one cannot draw conclusions from individual cases of that kind.


Angus MacInnis: Is that not a strong indictment of the system under which we live?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, I wonder if it is
What is happening is that we have been providing what my hon. friends would term a measure of social security, in an improvised and perhaps haphazard way during the past few years. I am far from suggesting that it is satisfactory; I agree absolutely with what has been said in this chamber, that we ought to look to employment as the real solution.

Relief and Agricultural Distress

But the experience of all the countries, members of the international labour office, does not suggest that we are likely to be able to absorb all who are at present unemployed unless there is a very marked improvement in economic conditions. During the last few years this country has had a large portion of its agricultural area out of production. It is difficult to measure the effect of that upon our economy. I doubt whether we can measure it until that agricultural area has come back into production. When it does, as we all hope it soon will, I believe we shall find that the unemployment properly so-called which now exists in western Canada will be materially reduced, if it does not entirely disappear.
I am now speaking not of unemployables but of those in the larger cities of western Canada who are out of employment. In the last few years the whole economy of western Canada has been thrown out of adjustment by the fact that a large part of the potentially productive area of that section of the country has not been producing.


Mr. WOOD:: The remarks of the hon.
member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) impel me to offer some contribution in this debate. First, I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) for his splendid explanation and his defence of his department. I often marvel at his patience and the careful way in which he listens to all the criticisms; he must have a very gracious disposition to take it with such good nature. But it is fitting that he should take this opportunity of defending the department of which he has the honour to be the head.
The remarks and suggestions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North regarding the solution of our problems were extremely interesting. I congratulate him; whether they were sound or otherwise, he did at least to the best of his ability offer suggestions for the approach to these problems. But, as the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) remarked, I do not see how the high level of wages that the hon. member advocates could solve our problems, because after all in Canada the agriculturists are the greatest consuming group. How are you going to harmonize high wages with low cost of goods, so that the purchasing power of the agriculturists will be in reasonable balance with that of industry? These are some of the difficulties we have to face. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. There must be a reasonable exchange of services among the different elements of society. I am inclined to the view that many of our difficulties are traceable to the fact that we have been

giving too large a reward for the labour of those who live in the industrial centres, and thus curtailed the purchasing power of the greatest consumers of their goods in this country. Thereby we have aggravated a situation that has been responsible to a great extent for bringing about the condition of affairs which exists. We have created a magnetic influence upon the farmer boys to attract them into the cities to obtain the higher wages and live under higher standards. All this has been done more or less at the sacrifice of the agricultural industry.
If the Minister of Labour will permit me,
I should like to take this opportunity to offer a suggestion. I do not claim to be an economist in the general sense of the word, but I dio claim to have at least a reasonable amount of common sense. I do not see how it will be possible to accept the many recommendations made by hon. members opposite without finding some source from which these things can oome.


Mr. KUHL:: Source of money.


George Ernest Wood: Yes, source of money. I have never been able to get money except ill exchange for services. In my experience of life I have never discovered any other way of getting money. It is true that I may have established a certain amount of credit after living in a community for 'a period of years, but I am sufficiently jealous of that credit to toe anxious about making use of it too elaborately for fear that I may live to reap the whirlwind as a result of my folly.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Where did the banks get their money?


George Ernest Wood: From people like you and me who have been sufficiently frugal to live within our means and have a little left over.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: How much money is there in the whole of Canada?


George Ernest Wood: I shall not attempt to match wits with hon. members of the social credit group. They might carry me into that state of coma in which they are themselves and I might not come out.
Considerable credit has been given to the government for initiating a youth training program. I hope there have been some results from this program, but I must say that I do not believe it is incumbent upon the state to train the youth of the country. After all, we as parents should have some obligations in the matter. The tendency is to ask governments to do many of the things which I think could be better done by ourselves. I do not want to imply for one moment that I

Relief and Agricultural Distress
am against academic training. Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity of obtaining that particular kind of training, but I have noticed that many of the prominent men in this country and the United States are in a similar position. I would direct attention to the fact that Mr. Farrell, the head, of the United States Steel Corporation, the heads of the Standard Oil companies and many other leaders of industry were poor boys who were raised on the farm. Many of them were not blessed with an abundance of this world's goods and had received only a limited public school education. But they have risen to be masters in their own particular line. I would also direct attention to the fact that many of the members who sit on the ministerial benches have risen to their present positions without the benefit of a great deal of academic training. Even without that training they have been able to come a long way in this world. I do not expect as much from this youth training as others seem to do, but I have no particular objection to it.
I was glad to hear the minister make a reference to unemployment insurance. When that plan is brought down I hope the farmer will be kept in mind, because after all he represents a large portion of the population of Canada. I hope that measure will provide some benefits for the agricultural worker. I do not think the citizens living in our industrial centres should be the only ones who are to be protected from unemployment, who are to be given the means of weathering the storms of our economic difficulties.
I think we must all admit that our attempts to solve the unemployment problem have not been as successful as we hoped they would be. I wonder if it would not be better for the government to subsidize employment instead of unemployment. We are paying out relief funds to those who are in the unfortunate position of being unemployed without getting any value in return. I do not think we can continue to do that without reaching financial disaster. I am inclined to the view that we should subsidize industry. I shall not suggest what this subsidy should be, but for the sake of argument I would suggest that some pump-priming, to use that term, should be done.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Where will you get the money?


George Ernest Wood: I do not know whether that
will suit our social crediters.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: It all depends upon where
you get the money.


George Ernest Wood: We shall come to that later.
I can show you how you will get it back. I
believe too much pump-priming of a sort has been done. We have been trying to prime the pump without working the handle, and I think we should start now to work the handle to see if we cannot get back some of the water. During this last year industry has enjoyed a fairly good period of prosperity. Most industries have expanded; but the unfortunate thing is that industry has increased prices and has reduced the purchasing power of the consumer, especially in the United States, to such an extent as to bring about another recession. More than anything else, this has been the cause of the recent recession. Industry has taken advantage of the present situation and has increased prices to such an extent as to reduce the purchasing power of the people. The result has been another recession and increased unemployment. It will be noticed that when it rains in the United States, it is generally cloudy in Canada. Canada has not been affected to the same extent. According to the last returns I saw, the decrease in trade in the United States amounted to 26 per cent, whereas the decrease in Canada amounted to only around 6 per cent.
How can we increase employment? In view of the fact that in the last year industry has enjoyed prosperity, I believe men engaged in industry are in a reasonably sound financial position, and if they were given the right to distribute certain government funds we might get results by way of a solution of some relief problems, and might obtain more in this way than by handing out moneys in direct relief. I would suggest a survey of all industries, asking them to increase employment. So that hon. members may follow my observations, I shall use the unit of five per cent as indicating the desired increase in employment. We would pay the relief moneys to the experienced men who would be taken on. We would consider the agricultural implement business, for instance, as one of the basic industries. I mention that industry because the customers of it are the farmers, those people engaged in our primary industry. The government would subsidize purchases from the agricultural implement firm to the extent of twenty per cent. When the firm received an order from a farmer the purchase would be subsidized to that extent, on condition that the industry would reduce the price by a similar amount as the increased demand for goods would have a tendency to lower cost of production in industry. The scheme may look somewhat farfetched, but I believe it is workable.
Then, along another line, we know that many buildings in Canada are greatly in need

Relief and Agricultural Distress
of paint. If the same scheme were applied to paint companies, a great many men would be employed and at the same time we would be protecting national wealth. The same scheme could be applied to the textile industry, through the distribution of clothing. Furniture companies could benefit in the same way. I should be inclined to extend the scheme for a period of time to every young married couple, giving them the advantage of the subsidy in setting up their homes. The housing problem, the forestry problem, and all other problems which have been pointed out could work in conjunction with the scheme I have in mind. Then, I trust the minister will not overlook the extension of farm credits, because I believe a great deal more can be done along the line of extending credit to farmers, and especially to those farmers who have sons. The farm loan board would be well advised to give a little extra credit to the farmer who wishes to place his sons on farms. The family could be organized into a unit to work together. In my view it is much better to keep on the farm those boys who are already there, because the farmer who has come from the city has proved to be a failure. I hold the view that after the boy leaves the farm and goes to a city, there is not much chance for his ever becoming a successful farmer. For these reasons it would be wise to try to keep him on the farm.
As a consequence of the pump-priming scheme I have suggested, and after the return of greater prosperity, we would introduce a general welfare act. In the operation of the act there would be an assessment on every man's pay, which would be held out as payment for his own social security when he reaches an age when he cannot work. That, in itself, would relieve the burden of taxation upon land and buildings which to-day is militating against the building trades. Because of the extreme taxes people are reluctant to erect new buildings. The time has come when, no matter what station in life a man may hold, it is his duty to contribute, according to his ability, to his own general welfare, and I would suggest that when the minister brings down his unemployment insurance scheme he keep that fact in mind. I would suggest that such a measure include every man, whether he be on the farm or whether he be a labourer. A general welfare act would include farmers as well as labourers. From experience I have learned that a system of insurance equivalent to an old age pension would give security to those people who have reached the end of their working period, and would place them in a

position whereby they could live along the standards to which they are entitled. Today they may have their living, but that is about all.
On the statute books of Canada to-day there is a Government Annuities Act. Any young person who will contribute $20.62 yearly, from the age of twenty-one years, may, at the age of sixty-five years, have the equivalent of an old age pension. In the event of his death before the required age, all the money he has paid in, plus four per cent, will be returned. It would be impossible to have an unemployment insurance scheme which would give the proper treatment to the farmer; but by incorporating the Government Annuities Act in the social security plan I have outlined, the benefits would be extended to each and every citizen. I feel the time has come when, no matter what one's circumstances in life may be, it is necessary for the government to legislate for each and every one so that we may all go abreast, share in one another's joys and in one another's sorrows.
I remember that while I was a boy the insurance scheme was brought into existence in England, and I am sure there was great hostility shown towards it. I believe that was probably the beginning of my interest in public affairs. I read with a great deal of interest the observations made by Mr. David Lloyd George in connection with the insurance bill. He was then Chancellor of the Exchequer under the able leadership of Mr. Campbell-Bannerman. It was at that time he introduced the insurance measure, and the famous Lloyd George budget, at a time when industry in England would scarcely tolerate the suggestion of an insurance scheme. I believe hon. members will agree that nothing has contributed more to hold the people of Great Britain together than has the scheme of unemployment insurance brought down at that time despite the greatest opposition and hostility. I am not suggesting the figures I have indicated to-night are actuarially correct ; but it is my belief that if we are to have security, it is the duty of every man to make some contribution towards it. I believe that is sound social credit. The only difference is that you supply the medium from which you get the benefit, instead of getting the benefit and then, like Micawber, hoping something will turn up.


Eric Joseph Poole: How would the unemployed contribute?


George Ernest Wood: I have already dealt with that. We hope by good, sound judgment we can relieve the unemployment situation.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Eric Joseph Poole: How would the unemployed contribute?


George Ernest Wood: It is to be hoped that at some time in the future they will not always be unemployed.


Eric Joseph Poole: That is the hope they must live on.


George Ernest Wood: There are some people who are still pretty well employed. I rather enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) on Friday night last. I am of the opinion that it is not wholly the responsibility of government to go out and find jobs for people. If people would be a little more self-reliant they could assist themselves and assist the government. I am not so sure that it is the function of government to do some of the things we are doing. That is what I honestly believe.


Eric Joseph Poole: What are we doing?


George Ernest Wood: I think we may have done too much, and if we deleted statutes for the next two or three sessions it might be better than adding to them.


Mr. QUELCH:: Would the hon. member agree with the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) that industry is producing only to fifty per cent of its capacity and that if you could increase the effective demand of your people, conditions would be greatly improved ?


George Ernest Wood: There is already a great demand for goods and services in this country. People need many things which industry can supply, and we have the men who can produce and supply them and the materials with which to make these goods. It is all a matter of confidence; but confidence has been destroyed more or less by reason of the fact that for the last few years in civilized countries people have been getting on soap boxes and trying to expound some kind of ism, instead of getting into the boat of life, taking hold of the oars and pulling their own weight in the boat. They would rather be a big shot in some ism than contribute something to help the old ship of state along.
I hope I have not taken too long, and I do not know that in my contribution to this debate I have made myself clear; but I should like to throw out the suggestion that if we are going to get back to prosperity, every man must do something to contribute to his own social security. True, there are difficulties to surmount; but I believe that if we can relieve the burden of taxation on industry and lands and buildings, industry will forge ahead. Certainly industry cannot continue to bear
the burden it is bearing to-day. Industry is supporting itself and helping to support a large proportion of these people who ought to be contributing something towards the national wealth of this country.
While I believe with the Minister of Finance that Canadian people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the civilized world, one of the difficulties under which we are labouring to-day is economic indigestion. Science and invention have flooded our civilization with so many of the luxuries of life that as a people we are often unable to resist accepting luxuries instead of being content with essentials, and a good deal of the product of our labour is ill spent. We are not putting it directly into the channels in which it will provide the necessities of life. We are spending a good deal of the product of our labours in luxuries instead of spending it upon the necessities of life, and that is responsible to a great extent for many of our present difficulties.


Victor Quelch: Would the hon. member say there is a scarcity of necessities?


George Ernest Wood: No; there is no scarcity of necessities, but there is a scarcity of intelligence in people who purchase luxuries instead of necessities.
In closing my remarks, I would say that I believe the people are expecting an honest attempt to approach these questions, and I congratulate the government upon appointing the commissions which have been condemned by our hon. friends opposite. But it is just as necessary in the field of science, I am led to believe, to ascertain that a thing cannot be done as that a thing can be done, and I believe that as a result of their labours we shall ascertain what it is possible to do and that we shall forge ahead, having found a place to put our feet on the ground, rather than blundering into some abyss. There is a tendency, as I have felt while listening to hon. members opposite, to want action for action's sake. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Poole) in his contribution a couple of weeks ago said: "For heaven's sake do something." I cannot agree with that attitude. I think it is much better to know just where you are going than to take a leap in the dark just to do something, and those who are responsible to the Canadian people for the government of this country must be very cautious and not just do something that might bring about disaster.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not deal
with my suggestion that at least a portion of the report of the national employment commission might be implemented by arranging

Relief and Agricultural Distress
with the provinces for honorary advisory committees to help the employment agencies in each province. The dominion is contributing quite a large sum towards supporting these agencies, and I think we should be able to arrange for the appointment of these committees, such as we had in connection with the home improvement plan and the veterans' assistance commission. I think they could help greatly in dealing with the placement of unemployed persons.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I assure my hon. friend
that it was an unintentional oversight. I agree that it would be an advantage to have advisory committees attached to the employment service. They do exist, as a matter of fact, in some of the provinces, but it has been found in experience that to make them effective these committees have to be focused on some particular task. In other words, simply to set up an advisory committee to help the employment service has seldom been found to be helpful in practice; but if the committee could be concentrated on some particular task, then I think it might serve some real purpose. That was the real advantage of the special committee set up to deal with the home improvement plan. They were dealing with one particular job, and they did it. I shall certainly bear the suggestion in mind.


Eric Joseph Poole: I had not intended to say
anything on this subject, but so many divergent views have been expressed that perhaps I might say a word. I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) the other day, give as a reason why we should not criticize the Liberal government too strongly, that ancient Rome had an unemployment problem. He asked us to go back into history. Perhaps he would like to have Julius Caesar as Prime Minister and Mark Antony as Minister of Finance. But civilization has progressed since the days of ancient Rome until the Liberal party came into power, and now things seem to be at a standstill.
The hon. member who spoke last (Mr. Wood) told us that unemployment could be solved; that it was up to the people who are unemployed. I wonder whether it is an epidemic of laziness that has afflicted this country. What was it that struck this dominion in 1929? Did many Canadians then decide to go on strike forever? The Minister of Labour has already told us that the solution of our problem is the expanding of trade, although the evidence in every part -of the world shows the trend is towards contracting markets. I was also struck to-night
fMr. Green.]
by members of the Liberal party turning to members of the opposition and asking for suggestions. When the Liberal party were elected, surely they had some idea as to how they were going to solve this problem, or did they, as an hon. member who has just spoken seems to think, just come here to sit? That is all that has happened in the last three sessions. They still have the problem before them. I do not know why the Minister of Labour hides the government's policy. I do not know what there is to hide. As a representative of the Canadian people I should like to know what the policy of the government is to be during the coming year. There are still unemployed in this country; there is still a lot of work to do.
I might be asked, of course, where the money is to come from. The hon. member for Meffort (Mr. McLean) to-day told us that we could not operate with pen and ink money from the social crediters. May be the pen and ink money advocated by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) will do. He suggested the issue of $500,000,000 new money to put people to work. That was not our suggestion. On this side of the house not one member has asked the government to do one thing outside of keeping the promises made by the Prime Minister in 1935. He recognized then the need for public works. His words are on record and have been quoted many times in this house. The Liberal party recognizes the need for money. The Minister of National Defence, when he spoke in Vancouver, made that quite clear. Why, he said, if the Liberal party were returned to power they would issue $500,000,000 of new money. But since we have come down here we are told that when social crediters propose using national credit, that is inflation. But it is not inflation if the Minister of National Defence proposes it. A lot depends upon the kind of ink you use, I guess.


Malcolm McLean: And what is back of the ink.


Eric Joseph Poole: Well, there is one thing behind that money; that is, the efforts of the
people.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Correct.


Eric Joseph Poole: The hon. member for Melfort spoke this evening in glowing terms of the liberty we enjoy in this country, and he accused my colleague from the Peace River area of advocating some kind of fascism. I wonder what liberty the unemployed and the poor people of this country have. There are thousands of people who have never known what it is to have a holiday. There

Relief and Agricultural Distress
are thousands to-day who are unemployed and have no kind of security. This is not because we cannot produce the wealth. We have in this dominion everything which is necessary to an abundant life. We have the natural resources. These are facts which I want the Liberal party to note. When they criticize the social credit group, let them remember that these are questions which they must answer. Have we the natural resources in this country? Have we the labour? Tell me the purpose of an economic system. Is it to find employment? Why is it that all through the ages man has striven to produce greater abundance, to produce plenty of goods of every variety with as little human effort as possible? That has been the history of the human family-to get away from the age of scarcity. What the Liberal party in this house has been and still is doing is endeavouring to apply the age-old policy of scarcity in an age of abundance. The hon. member for Melfort shakes his head, but I fear no intelligent contradiction of that statement. Now, if we have no resources in -this country to feed the unemployed, why have we people unemployed? Why not put them to work to produce the goods they need?


Malcolm McLean: Who is to put
them to work?


Eric Joseph Poole: The state. Who else?


Malcolm McLean: A fascist state.


Eric Joseph Poole: You do not need a fascist
state. Why does my hon. friend emphasize a "fascist" state? Will he accuse me of being a fascist? I know this afternoon he told us that Hitler put his men to work by drafting them into the army and producing armaments. Of course they carry the arms, but I want to remind the hon. member that what degree of prosperity we have enjoyed in the past two years has resulted from the activities of these same fascist states.


Malcolm McLean: No.


Eric Joseph Poole: They carry the arms, but
we in this country are the people who manufactured them.


Malcolm McLean: No.


Eric Joseph Poole: Yes. Look at the nickel
industry in this country. Consider the exportation of metals. I will go further. If the Liberal party thinks there is a depression now, just let the international situation cool down a little; let the armament race stop for a few short months, and they will find out that the depression of 1932 was just a preliminary to what is to come. I do not, think
very much of a government which seems to require all its members to make excuses for it. That is what is happening in the debates this year; we have seen almost every hon. member who supports the Liberal party jumping to the defence of the policy of the government. Really the government has no policy. It has not yet arrived at that stage of progressiveness where it is prepared to step out of its traditional apathy and move along paths which will lead some place for the good of the people. In my opinion the promises which this government made in 1935 should be carried out. We need homes, almost any number of them. We have the tradesmen; we have the mechanics; we have, according to the Minister of Finance, control of our national credit. Why do we not bring together these factors and use them? I want to be quite candid with the government. I think it is the dumbest government that evei was elected in this country.


Mr. BRADETTE:: The hon. member
should know about "dumbness."


Eric Joseph Poole: I would not have to be very smart to know that. All Canada should know it.
Mr. ST-PERE:	How long has the hon.
member been in this country?


Eric Joseph Poole: I have been here long enough to know how dumb the Liberal party is.
Mr. ST-PERE:	The hon. member should
go back where he belongs.


Eric Joseph Poole: I belong in this country just
as much as the hon. member does.
Mr. ST-PERE:	No, sir. My ancestors
came to Canada in 1642.


Eric Joseph Poole: Well, that was not the hon. member's fault.


An hon. MEMBER:: This hon. gentleman is one of those fellows who want to live without working.


Eric Joseph Poole: I may be a better Canadian than the hon. member, because I chose this country and adopted it. The hon. member did not choose Canada.
Mr. ST-PERE:	We certainly made a bad
bargain when we let in the hon. member.


Eric Joseph Poole: Yes, a bad bargain for the
Liberal party.


Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rose-mount):: The hon. member chose this country because it had had Liberal administrations before he came.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


George Ernest Wood: When he chose this country
he must have thought it was better than some other countries or he would not have come here.


Eric Joseph Poole: I think it is the best country in the world, but I am here to make it a better country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Another Mussolini.


Eric Joseph Poole: Well, we are starting in the west, and it must be admitted that we have made a good start. We have taken one province, and next year we shall do more. I believe that the social credit forces in this country represent the hope of economic democracy in Canada.


Malcolm McLean: In the hon.
member's opinion.


Charles Avery Dunning: And the promise of
twenty-five dollars a month to the electors.


Victor Quelch: What were the Liberal
members elected on?


An hon. MEMBER:: Your group did not intend to keep their promise.


Eric Joseph Poole: 
Malcolm McLean: Oh, no.


Eric Joseph Poole: The Liberal party promised
to issue credit for the public need and they did not do so. Let them be fair. Alberta is merely one province in the dominion, and if the social credit party of that province had the necessary power there is no question about what it would do. But the Liberal party has the power. My hon. friends opposite said that they would do certain things and they have not done them. For many years in this parliament there is one body of citizens who have not been represented and that is the poor people of Canada. I have always felt that the members did not understand the conditions under which the people were living. We have a tremendous debt which is being added to every year, every decade. In the last twenty years we have spent from all sources pretty close to a billion dollars for all kinds of relief. What could we not have done with that money in building useful public works and homes for the people? Have the government any vision of a future when unemployment will be a thing of the past, when once again there will be a demand for the youth of Canada in industry? If the government have not that vision, have they made provision for the youth of the country?
[Mr. Fournier. J
The Minister of Finance emphasized the fact that we promised $25 a month. I do not think there is any harm in promising $25 a month to every citizen. I believe the country is rich enough to provide every man, woman and1 child with food, clothing and shelter, but the Liberal party does not share that belief. I do not know why any child born into this world should not be assured a living the same as the birds of the air. I do not know why anybody should not benefit by the technological improvements that have been made by science, and certainly the great mass of the people who have helped through the generations to bring about fhat improvement are entitled to share in the oenefits. I do not know that the Almighty gave the monopolists of Canada an exclusive right to all the benefits accumulated through the generations. I have heard many eloquent pleas in this house for people who are always well defended because they have plenty of money. We are told not to touch sacred/ rights of bondholders, but when it comes to the unemployed it is a different matter entirely. If they send a delegation to some place in Toronto or to the capital city of Ottawa, they are only thrown into gaol.
I want to make this plain to the hon. gentleman who accuses me of being a fascist. If there were ever any party in this country that has done more than another towards creating unrest and discontent, it is the Liberal party. They have done this by the simple method of doing nothing in parliament; they have simply drifted down stream. Quite often when I speak in the house I have the same feeling that was expressed by an hon. gentleman this afternoon-it all seems so futile. It seems that we are dealing not with human beings, but with units, something abstract that does not concern parliament. But there are none so blind as those who will not see. A government that refuses to give the people of the country a living, a government that sits by and waits for something to happen in some other country, for another world war to absorb the unemployed, is not a government that can be commended. Such a policy does not speak highly for it. The government of this generation should be a planning government; it should know exactly where it is going; it should be planning from one five year period to another, and as the nation becomes wealthier every individual in the country should share in the benefits of that wealth.
There has been much criticism of social credit in this house, but I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that it cannot be criticized out of existence. I should hate, however, to belong

Relief and Agricultural Distress
to a social credit party that advocated the sort of social credit that hon. members opposite understand and interpret. Social credit does not mean redistribution of existing purchasing power; it does not mean taking from one and giving to another. Social credit in its simplest form means this: that you cannot, under the present system, provide sufficient purchasing power at any one time to purchase total production as represented by prices. There is a difference between what it costs to produce and what the consumer is asked to pay for the product. Social credit represents the difference between what it costs to produce goods and the ultimate price of them. That is social credit in its simplest form.


Malcolm McLean: My hon. friend has been telling us what social credit is not; what we are waiting for is a definition of what it is.


Eric Joseph Poole: I have just told the hon. member. It is the difference between total cost of production and the ultimate price of the goods produced. I know that one of the ministers, speaking in the west recently, referred to the weird ideas of social credit. Well, you do not have to go beyond the Liberal party to find weird ideas; in fact, some of their ideas are real nightmares. They talk in this house about solving the unemployment problem, while the national credit they leave in the control of someone else. The Minister of Finance tells us that we control it, but we are not getting much of it. The people are not enjoying it even if we do control it. Nor is social credit scrip. Scrip is recoverable by taxation, and that is a different thing entirely. While on the subject of unemployment, I wonder if as Canadians-never mind where I came from-
Mr. ST-PERE:	According to the parliamentary guide the hon. gentleman came here when he was three years old, and he said he chose this country to live in. He was pretty precocious.


Eric Joseph Poole: I was in this country and in this city twenty-nine years ago.
Mr. ST-PERE: But the hon. member did
not choose this country to come to.


Eric Joseph Poole: No; in fact I went back.
Mr. ST-PERE:	He should apologize to
the hon. member.


Eric Joseph Poole: At the age of two years I left Canada, but I came back in 1928, so I did choose the country. I am sorry my hon. friend did not have the same privilege. But
this subject of unemployment is not something you can laugh out of existence. We need some money to deal with it. We need some public works. It makes no difference what hon. members opposite or on this side suggest, you cannot do anything without the instrument with which to do it, and in this case the economic instrument is national credit. I hope that in future in this house the Liberal party will not go as far back as ancient Rome to find a precedent for unemployment. Unless this government change their tactics and really do something, they will probably be the last democratic government in this country; democracy will pass from Canada as it passed from Europe, because governments refused to do the things which they knew were essential for the national welfare. People will not be found desiring change or dictatorships when they are contented. This government is responsible for making Canadians a contented people. The only way to make them contented is to absorb our youth into industry, once again imbue them with the spirit of Canadianism, make them feel that they are a part of society, doing their part in the building of a great nation.
Mr. ST-PERE: Hear, hear.


Eric Joseph Poole: I do not know what my hon. friend finds funny about that.
Mr. ST-PERE:	I said "Hear, hear." I
congratulate the hon. member.


Eric Joseph Poole: I wish my hon. friend would come out to my riding some time-
' Mr. ST-PERE:	I invite the hon. member
to mine.


Eric Joseph Poole: If they would visit the soup kitchens of Canada, hon. members would not find this such a light subject. If they would forego their sessional indemnity and bankbooks for a few weeks and go to the soup kitchens of Canada, they would understand these problems better. There is a job to do, and the people of Canada sent this government here to do it, not to wish away the problem of unemployment, but to do away with it. The way to do away with unemployment is to put people back to work, absorb them into building and construction. Unless a start is made, the outlook is poor for the people to enjoy the security which they have known even in these days of scarcity. So the slogan of this party now, while in office, should be: Work and wages; not relief and dole. Unemployment insurance does not appeal to me; it is only a palliative, something to string along with for another decade and get by without doing the real job that

Relief and Agricultural Distress
should be done. In Great Britain they have had unemployment insurance, but has it solved the problem there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do I understand that the hon. member is against a scheme of unemployment insurance in this country?


Eric Joseph Poole: I am very much opposed to unemployment insurance as suggested by this government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the hon. gentleman opposed to a scheme of unemployment insurance as he understands this government is considering it?


Eric Joseph Poole: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Or any scheme of unemployment insurance that is known to us?


Eric Joseph Poole: Yes; it is so unnecessary. It is nothing new; they have had it in Germany, in Great Britain. It is only a palliative.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the hon. gentleman speaking for himself, or his group?


Eric Joseph Poole: I am speaking for myself; the group is able to speak for itself.


Malcolm McLean: The group agree; they were prompting him.


Eric Joseph Poole: The government propose that, whether it is reasonable or not, as long as it is a vote-catcher. It would be only a redistribution of purchasing power, not a solution of the problem; only taking something from the person who is working so that the person who is not working may get some of it, making a man who may be getting $10 a week contribute part of that for the unemployed. The problem is the lack of purchasing power; if you redistribute the whole income of Canadians in terms of cash, it would not solve the problem. It is not a problem of redistribution.


Malcolm McLean: My hon. friend is opposed to the payment of $25 a month to people without any return given to the state?


Eric Joseph Poole: But the return has been given by generations past. Let me explain, if my hon. friend would like an explanation. The greatest, the most important factor in the economic system is the consumer. Unless he is getting and using goods, industry slows dowrn. You must place in the hands of the consumer effective demand. There is of course a difference between demand and effective demand; a million people in Canada to-day demand things but they do not get them because they have not the tokens or the effective demand in their hands. If the

consumer is recognized as the greatest factor, you must realize that they are short of purchasing power. To redistribute that which is already in the hands of people would not make up the deficiency in purchasing power; you must have more; you must begin with the consumer so that he begins to buy and drag goods from industry.
To-day we have arrived at the point where governments are stimulating industry. In the United States they are "priming the pump," giving loans to industry. But the managers of banks in Canada tell you that their problem is to make loans. Why? Because industry to-day has developed to a high degree its power of production so that it can produce more than the purchasing power which goes out in wages, salaries and dividends can absorb. So the social credit proposal is very simple: Begin with the consumer. It is because of the consumer that there is any economic activity at all. If a machine is put into a factory, this is done for only one purpose, to produce goods. The only reason for producing goods is that people may use them. To-day goods can be produced in great abundance; the reason we have a depression to-day is not because we cannot produce enough, but because the consumer has not the wherewithal, the effective demand, to take the goods from industry. It is of no use to pay it in wages, because that would increase prices. So you have to do two things: First, to give out purchasing power which does not pass into the cost accounting system, in other words, does not go into the cost of production, but begins with the consumer. The second thing is to stop the rise in prices. To do that you apply what is called a discount rate; you compensate the retailer or producer if he sells below the cost of production.


Mr. THORSON:: How do you do that?


Eric Joseph Poole: By paying the difference
directly to the producer.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: What with? Where do you get it?


Eric Joseph Poole: National credit.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Eric Joseph Poole: Do not laugh.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is impossible not to laugh.


Eric Joseph Poole: If hon. members want to know about social credit, we will tell them. The hon. member for Melfort asks where the money comes from. Let me ask him where any money comes from.

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Malcolm McLean: Money, as my hon. friend knows, is promissory notes. He knows that if he issues promissory notes beyond his capacity to pay, he will not get further credit. And the state would be in the same position.


Eric Joseph Poole: Money is not a promissory note. No matter what money is made of, provided it has arrived at that degree of acceptability that you can exchange goods and services for it, it is money. It is valueless unless it has a demand quality, unless you can exchange it for goods. A fe,w moments ago my hon. friend asked me what was behind it and where it came from. The credit which would be used in social credit would be exactly the same as you use to-day, and the very same things would be behind it-goods and services. We have said already that there is an insufficient purchasing power and that we want to increase that purchasing power. The goods and services behind that increase would be just the same as what is behind yoiur money to-day.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend admits that there would be a natural rise in prices as a result of the initial application of this principle and he acknowledges that unless there was effective price control, things would get out of hand. The just price or price control is an essential feature of his theory. I gather it is the intention to bring about that control ,by paying to the seller the difference between what he would have to charge as a result of the higher prices and what would be regarded by some authority as a just price. Am I correct in that? There would be paid to the retailer the difference between what the goods cost him as a result of the price enhancement, on .the one hand, and what was determined by some authority to be the just price, on the other.


Eric Joseph Poole: I would say that is correct.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then I am correct so
far. My hon. friend then says that the money to be paid to the retailer under these circumstances is to be national credit; that is, it is to be based upon, the production of goods and services. However, already we have produced those goods at too high a price; we have already used the national credit in producing them and in creating the just price which we are going to bonu3 the retailer for charging. What would be the basis for the credit which would be issued by the state for that secondary purpose? Two and two still make four.


Eric Joseph Poole: There is a logical answer to these questions.
Mr. MaoINNIS: I would suggest that the Minister of Finance carry his question just a point further. He should point out that the additional credit which would be paid to the retailer would further increase inflation.


Eric Joseph Poole: The Minister of Finance
suggested that in the initial stage prices would rise. That is natural. To-day some goods are sold for which fair prices are not received. We would have to arrive at a price level which would give the seller or the producer his cost plus something else, commission or profit. I think the idea that the world can never operate without a profit is absurd, because to me anything over and above cost is profit. I think the minister is overlooking one thing. He said that when you have produced goods you have used up your national credit. That is not true.


Charles Avery Dunning: To that extent.


Eric Joseph Poole: To the extent of the cost, but not to the extent of the price.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend made a point of the fact that the cost would be too high.


Eric Joseph Poole: The price.


Charles Avery Dunning: He proposed a bonus to bring down the price resulting from the too high costs.


Eric Joseph Poole: Let me put it to the minister in this way. An article might be selling to-day for a dollar which might be considered a fair price which a retailer receives under the present competitive system. With a social credit scheme in operation, that article would sell for seventy-five cents. We would be increasing the value of money on the one hand, and we would be giving the consumer more money, on the other. That is true, is it not? If I sell an article for seventy-five cents which sold previously for a dollar and the state compensates me as the retailer, I would lose nothing. However, the consumer would be able to purchase more goods with his money. That does away with your theory of inflation. You could not possibly have inflation if prices come down to the consumer as you produce more.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a question in connection with what the hon. gentleman has just said. There would still be countries in the world in which social credit would not be in operation. Having in mind our economic interdependence, how are you going to deal with the inevitable variation in price? How are you going to deal with the price level?

Relief and Agricultural Distress


Eric Joseph Poole: As we deal with it to-day.
Theoretically in international trade we deal in terms of cash, but actually we deal in terms of goods. All we do in foreign trade is to exchange goods for goods. I know that we have sold goods to China, but I have never seen Chinese money in this country. It is true that there will be a difference between the price of goods here and the price of goods in other countries, but there is a difference to-day. Adjustments will be made in exactly the same way. We do not intend to interfere with anything internationally; this is a scheme which works internally.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Assuming that this social
credit state was a debtor country, how would you meet your obligations to creditor nations?


Eric Joseph Poole: We are a debtor nation today and we meet our debts in the old-fashioned way, by exporting more goods. We pay in terms of goods and services. We have possibly one of the finest examples of that in the manner in which Germany attempted to pay her debts to the United States. She paid with boots and shoes and the United States worker who came back from France found that he was out of a job. We do that now and we shall do it to-morrow. Under social credit our national debt would be reduced because we would have more goods for export. We would be producing more because the demand would be greater. The demand for imports would be greater because we do not produce that variety which is necessary to national need.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How would you pay for
your imports?


Eric Joseph Poole: The same as we do to-day,
with our exports. There is no other way in which you could pay for them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Supposing citizen "A"
wanted to buy shoes from Czechoslovakia, how would the transaction be carried on under social credit?


Eric Joseph Poole: In exactly the same way
as it would to-day. His cheque would go into the clearing house and be charged against this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Supposing the shoes cost
one hundred dollars. How much would the citizen in the social credit country have to pay to the exporting country?


Eric Joseph Poole: I do not understand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The state is going to increase the purchasing power of the citizen; the state is going to pay a portion of the cost of that commodity.


Eric Joseph Poole: I did not say that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is what the hon.
member has said.


Eric Joseph Poole: No. We were discussing
placing money in the hands of the purchaser. You pay it into the hands of the consumer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The man who buys the
shoes is the consumer.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The man in this country.


Eric Joseph Poole: In international trade we
would pay for things just as we do now. Does the hon. member suggest there is no difference between the prices of goods produced in Canada and the prices in some other countries? They are not the same in any other nation of the world.
But that does not enter into the argument with respect to social credit, and I shall discard it. We are talking about national credit which will make up the difference in the cost of production and ultimate prices and which will supply the consumer with things which could not possibly be purchased through the cost and price system as we know it to-day.


Charles Avery Dunning: At this point could we
not get back to the section under discussion? Everybody has had an innings. I admire the courage of the hon. member who has just spoken. He has gone further than most of his colleagues in the development of the social credit theory, but after all that discussion does not really fall within the four corners of the section before the committee.


Eric Joseph Poole: I would remind the minister that we claim the problem cannot be solved without social credit. Hon. members opposite have asked certain questions which I have been only too pleased to answer.
In conclusion, I say that until we recognize that there is a deficiency of purchasing power, and that all our industrial activity is for one purpose and one only, namely to supply the ultimate consumer with the goods of production, we shall not reach a satisfactory solution. That is the purpose of the economic system. If it is not, then I want hon. members opposite to tell me why we produce goods.
Debate on the question of money cannot be had too often. It is the first and most important question which can ever come before parliament in this day and generation. Until a political party which will deal with money and credit sits on the right side of Mr. Speaker, we shall never get out of the present economic chaos. As one of the youngest men in the house may I say that I fear the future, under present governmental policy. I can see no hope and I can see contracting markets -the very thing which will destroy all the

Privilege-Mr. Church
doctrines of the old line parties. We find Japan making inroads into China, with the result that industrialization takes place and less is bought from us. Germany goes into Austria, industrializes it and buys less from us. Italy goes into Abyssinia, industrializes it and buys less from us. We are faced with a greater paradox than ever. Here is a nation choked with wealth and the machinery to produce vast quantities of the very things which people want, but they cannot buy.
That is all I have to say on the matter. I thank hon. members for the questions they have asked. I am so convinced that the monetary system is wrong that I avail myself of every opportunity I get to go to any county or school district to tell the people something about this monetary system which keeps humanity shackled to poverty.


Mrs. BLACK:: It is eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and I suggest we call it a day.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 3, 1938