1939-04-14

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw) be substituted for that of Sir Eugene Fiset on the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 95, respecting the Toronto harbour commissioners.
He said: The purpose of the bill is to empower the Toronto harbour commissioners, for and at the expense of the city of Toronto, to construct, operate, et cetera, the Toronto Island and Toronto Malton airports; to validate all acts of the commissioners in respect of the work done in construction and development of the said airports and all agreements entered into by the commissioners for such purposes; to empower the commissioners to enforce zoning regulations for the purpose of providing unobstructed air space for the landing and taking off of aircraft, and to take expropriation proceedings in connection therewith.
Mr. CHURCH:: Both airports were constructed entirely at the expense of the city.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



CANADIAN FEDERATION OF LABOUR

Mr. NEILL:: During 1938, did the Canadian Federation of Labour offer to make its records of membership available for examination by the same officer of the Department of Labour as had, upon a similar invitation, been instructed to visit the office of the federation in June, 1937?
71492-172J


Mr. ROGERS:: Yes. The Canadian Federation of Labour was, however, unwilling to make its records of membership available for examination on the same basis which had been adopted by the Department of Labour and applied in respect to other central labour organizations, namely, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the All-Canadian Congress of Labour.



REVEREND SIDNEY LAMBERT

Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Is the Reverend Sidney Lambert in the employ now, or has he been in the employ, of the Department of Pensions and National Health at Toronto?
2.	If so, how long has he been employed by the department?
3.	What rate of pay has he received, or is he receiving?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Since 1920.
3.	$2,400 per annum.



THE NATIONAL ANTHEM

Thomas Langton Church: Is any national anthem in Canada, other than "God Save the King," recognized by the government, and, if so, by what authority?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no law recognizing the national anthem; it is a question of convention and custom.
As a member of the British commonwealth of nations, Canada is using, as a national anthem, and will continue to use "God Save the King". As is the case with other members of the commonwealth, another anthem with particular reference to the country itself has also been sanctioned by custom and usage in Canada, namely, "0 Canada".



TORONTO POST OFFICE BUILDING EXTENSION

Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	Has the contract with respect to the construction of an extension to the post office in Toronto been cancelled?
2.	If so, for what reasons was this contract cancelled ?


Mr. CARDIN:: No contract exists for the construction of an extension to the post office at Toronto.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Are the following: J. P. MacMillan, F. C. Fenton, J. V. Smart, Andrew Livingstone and John Matheson connected with development work at the Cape Breton national park?
2.	If so, in what capacity is each employed?

Questions as Orders jor Returns
3.	How much is each receiving: (a) as salary; (b) living allowance; (c) travelling expenses?
4.	How much did each receive in the years 1937 and 193S respectively?


HIGHLAND NATIONAL PARK, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	What amount has been expended in developing the Highland national park, Nova Scotia, during the years 1936, 1937 and 1938 respectively ?
2.	What was the total cost for surveys in connection with said park?
3.	When will it be completed, what is the total estimated cost, and what is the area?


ORIENTALS DEPORTED
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Have any orientals been deported in the year ending March 31, 1939?
2.	If so, what are their names, race, and the reason for deportation in each case?


Mr. CRERAR:: Return tabled.


REGULATIONS RESPECTING FLYING OF FLAGS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the Department of the Secretary of State had any inquiry regarding the proper flag to fly on the land during the coming visit of his majesty?
2.	Will the department table a copy of the regulations or rulings on this matter?
3.	What are the regulations regarding flags on the inland or other waters in Canada?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. H. G. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), or, in his absence, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). In view of the international crisis which now threatens democracy and the British empire, will the minister take cognizance -of the statement made by Professor G. M. A. Grube of Trinity College, Toronto, appearing in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Thursday, April 13, in which he is reported to have said that Canada's defence appropriations are "a waste of public funds in the interests of British imperialism." Will the minister further state whether any disciplinary action will be taken by the department against the spokesman, who is, I understand, a college professor engaged in the teaching of youth?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that if the government began to take cognizance of all the statements made by professors to-day and to seek to discipline them in respect thereto, we might have a large

undertaking, and a new one, on our hands. We shall give the same attention to the statement referred to as we do to most statements of a like nature on questions that are before the country at the present time.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). The question was asked two weeks ago when unfortunately he was away on account of illness. I would ask him what is now being done about the large body of transients who are being cut off by the province from relief and food in the city of Toronto on April 15, next Saturday. What action is the government going to take in the matter?	.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I think I can best answer the question of my hon. friend by referring to an exchange of telegrams which took place in the last week of March between the acting Minister of Labour at Ottawa and the Minister of Public Welfare at Toronto. The following message was sent on March 25 to the Minister of Public Welfare, Toronto:
Re cut off date single transients am informed it is intention your government to cut off this assistance as of March thirty-first. In view of backward season I am prepared to recommend to my colleagues as with the other provinces that the arrangement for caring for these men be renewed to cover such further period as conditions warrant.
J. A. MacKinnon,
Acting Minister of Labour.
To that message the following reply was sent by Mr. Cross, Minister of Public Welfare, Toronto:
In view of backward season province is extending present arrangements re transient unemployed until April fifteenth.
The decision in this matter has always been exercised by the provincial government con-' cerned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to protest against making orders for returns the replies to a number of questions on the order paper. It has been happening all session, and I do not think it is fair to the house. Take question

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
No. 3 on to-day's order paper, in the name of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks). It could have been answered in about three lines, and yet it was passed as an order for return, and the return was tabled.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is wrong. The answers to question No. 2 and question No. 3 were not tabled as orders for returns. The answer to No. 4 was tabled as a return.


Robert James Manion: That just makes it that much worse. The question could have been answered in about three lines. Every day questions are asked on the order paper the replies to which it would be convenient for members to have on Hansard, yet over and over again they are being passed as orders for returns. I wish to take exception to this practice. I do not think it is fair to the members, because when an order for a return comes down, there is only one copy and somebody gets it and nobody else can see it. The practice is being carried on this session to a greater extent than I have ever seen it before, and I want to enter my protest against it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, certainly it would suit the government's- convenience to answer questions at once if it could get the information immediately, but many of these questions that are asked to be allowed to stand, or are passed as orders for returns, involve a considerable amount of research in the departments, and, as I have just been reminded, many of them relate to more than one department. I do not think there has been any intention not to answer questions promptly, but I do know, because I have asked about it myself, that frequently we have been unable to get the answers from the departments immediately because of the research that was required.


Robert James Manion: I appreciate that, but it would not hurt the order paper to leave the questions standing until the answers are ready. I know there are certain questions in connection with which research is required, but there are many others which could be answered in a few lines. It was only because I believe it is becoming a habit to pass them as orders for returns when it is not necessary-
Some hon. MEMBERS. No.


Robert James Manion: Again and again my
colleagues, particularly the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), and I have spoken about it. It is not necessary to pass many of these questions as orders for returns where the answers would not occupy a lot of space in Hansard; where they would, I have no objection. But the Minister of Mines and
Resources (Mr. Crerar), for example, tabled a return this afternoon in reply to a question that could have been answered in about three lines. Other members besides the one asking the question often desire to see the answer in Hansard, and we cannot do so when the question is passed as an order for return.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Under the rules it is entirely in the discretion of the government.


Robert James Manion: But it is entirely in my discretion to object. I understand the discretion of the government, but I also understand my own discretion, and we can object when we wish to.


Ernest Lapointe: That does not change the rule.


Robert James Manion: It does not change the rule, but it may make for pretty stiff opposition sometimes.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 15, consideration of the motion of Hon. Norman McL. Rogers (Minister of Labour) that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress and for such purpose to authorize the execution of undertakings in the general interest of Canada and requisite for the purposes of the act, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, and also to provide financial assistance to the provinces by way of loan, advance or guarantee, out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, and for the appointment of necessary officers, clerks and employees.
Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to continue the discussion of the motion respecting unemployment and agricultural distress which was introduced by the minister about four weeks ago, I feel that my position is not unlike that of a ghoul about to feed on the fresh corpse of a dead debate.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear -that is a new one.


Denton Massey: In introducing this resolution the minister made a statement in regard to unemployment and agricultural distress. Even though his statement was made a matter of some four weeks ago I imagine that as a result of the nature of it most hon. members not only heard the speech but read it carefully in Hansard, and it will hardly be necessary
2732	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
for me even at this late date to refer to it except in general terms, and to one or two paragraphs of it in particular.
But we noted this aibout the speech, Mr. Speaker, that it was the most apologetic and defeatist speech that we have heard yet in this chamber. Since that speech we have been given the government's legislative program for the remainder of this session. It is notable that in this program there is no provision whatever to deal with unemployment as a permanent problem. It has now become evident that the government has no intention of taking action in connection with this most vital matter, which affects either directly or indirectly every man, woman and child in Canada. Even though the situation is shockingly obvious even to the most casual observer, and is becoming daily more and more acute, all that the government has to offer to him who is unemployed, and to his family, and to the youth who is endeavouring to find his first job, is a resolution which in essence says and says only, " You do not have to worry; the government is aware that you are on relief; it will not let you and your family starve to death. We are not prepared of course to introduce any constructive measures to give you a permanent job or to assist you to find a job, but do not worry, we won't let you starve to death."
Hon. gentlemen opposite are constantly complaining because we who speak on this side of the house, here and occasionally outside of it, refer to the present administration as a "do-nothing government." Perhaps it is not very important what we call the government, but it is the condition of the would-be wage-earner in Canada to-day which proclaims the truth of that phrase, and proclaims it more effectively than anything else that may be said by those who speak in this house. I have unbounded faith in the people of Canada; I have unbounded faith in the individual Canadian, and I feel confident that if the government were to give any indication of a real and sincere effort to meet the unemployment problem at its source by the opening up of new and permanent jobs, by dealing with the cause of unemployment rather than temporizing with its results, any such effort would meet with the spontaneous support of the people of Canada.
Let us listen for a moment to the words which were put into the mouth of his excellency at the opening of the present session by the right hon. gentleman who leads the government. They are to be found on page 4 of Hansard:
(Mr. Massey.]
My ministers recognize that the plight of those who are still unemployed cannot await necessary constitutional amendments, nor the summoning of any conference. They are prepared therefore, notwithstanding constitutional impediments to effective action, to join with the provinces in a further determined effort to meet the immediate situation.
To this end it is proposed further to expand the government's long range program of public undertakings. In pursuance of the policy of the active encouragement of employment, it is also proposed to undertake, with provincial cooperation, to provide assistance to municipalities which, as an alternative to the provision of direct relief, desire to expand their normal programs of civic improvements.
As a means of providing an opportunity for useful work and national service to single unemployed men, the assistance given to forest conservation will be extended to include other work of national importance.
The beneficial results of the youth training program, have demonstrated the wisdom of this experiment, and a measure will be introduced to increase its efficiency and expand its usefulness.
In the light of such a statement as this it was reasonable to assume that the government had some plan to introduce to the house this session, some plan designed to deal with unemployment at its source. But instead of that, what do we find? The legislative program for the remainder of this session is blank, bleached and barren of any constructive measure to deal with this problem in any permanent way. The very resolution which the minister introduced the other day was the same old relief resolution, hidebound and hamstrung by the red tape which has been manufactured by the joint efforts of the federal administration and the various provincial legislatures. Over a million people on relief in Canada, countless thousands of men looking for work but not yet on relief, with the conditions for them growing more desperate every day, and still further countless thousands facing the hazards of part time employment at-oftentimes-shockingly low rates of pay. The whole situation as reflected -in any release of the Department of Labour shows that this problem is getting worse every day. It seems to me that the attitude of the government in the present economic crisis in this country is not unlike that of the mule in the thunderstorm, when it stands stockstill and merely closes its eyes.
The minister's speech of a month ago, if analysed carefully, is, as I said in my reply to it at the time, a frank admission that the measures which have been taken so far have simply served to nibble at the problem. It is now apparent that the minister's admission of failure is recognized by the government itself, as is dramatically shown by the absence of any legislative program to deal with the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
situation. The minister essentially admitted this in his own speech. If we turn to Hansard
of March 15, on page 1920 we read this:
Like my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) I have had in these last few years some experience with the administration of social services on a basis of dual responsibility. I shall not conceal from the house that when I studied this question in the abstract, before I entered parliament, I was impressed with the possibilities of cooperation in this field of dual responsibility. I have not entirely rejected the possibility of cooperation, but I have found by experience that this indefinite area which applies particularly to social services in this country is not only susceptible of cooperation but is perhaps even more susceptible of conflict and friction. Therefore when it has been urged upon me from time to time as Minister of Labour that in the absence of any constitutional changes, before serious consideration of any constitutional changes and without such information as may proceed from the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, we should take over the entire burden of relief, I have said that we should not assume financial responsibility without securing administrative control. I submit that this is the only position with regard to this matter that can be taken by those whose attitude toward it must be based upon a sense of official responsibility.
An utterance, Mr. Speaker, which of itself sounds emptiness, hopelessness, and defeat. All that the minister said to the distressed of this country was, as I have already stated, "If we cannot arrange properly this question of dual responsibility we will continue to feed you and you will not starve to death." Then he went on to tell the million on relief in Canada, and the scores of thousands who are compelled to eke out an existence as a result of lack of work or of part time employment, that we should be grateful that we are better off here than they are in other countries. He said, at page 1929:
Why cannot we take encouragement from the fact that the situation in this country is relatively better than it is in others?
And further, on page 1913:
So far as relief and unemployment are concerned my position from the beginning has been that it was the part of wisdom to search out and present the truth, however unpleasant it might be.
Not for a moment am I saying that we should not be grateful that we in Canada do not have to face hazards in the same degree as that in which they have to be faced by people in other countries.
At a time like this it is strange that the Minister of Labour should attempt to take shelter in a position of assumed gratitude that things are no worse than they are. As we survey the legislative activity or lack of activity of this government in the last three and a half years, perhaps we should all be grateful that things are not worse than they are.
The minister said further:
So far as relief and unemployment are concerned my position from the beginning has been that it was the part of wisdom to search out and present the truth, however unpleasant that it might be.
I am not going to say for a moment that the minister did not make an honest statement, but I will say that in his statement, instead of facing the cold facts, he resorted to academic definition. For it was apparent that his chief concern was to make his figures appear in as favourable a light as possible. He took umbrage, or should I say he became righteously indignant, at figures which have appeared in the press from time to time, figures from the Canadian youth congress and from other sources which were not his own. These figures did not happen to coincide with his own academic definition, and therefore, as I say, he took umbrage at them.
I have in my hand the report of the unemployment survey conducted by the Ottawa youth federation, dated November 21 to 26, 1938. I presume the minister has seen this report. It was sent to me as well as to other members of the house, and I have perused it carefully. I congratulate those responsible for it. In this report there is a record of what was done under the survey. Two thousand homes within the city limits of Ottawa were visited, that is, one home in every ten. Let it be remembered that essentially Ottawa is not an industrial city; and yet in this city of Ottawa, in these 2,000 homes visited, there were found 562 unemployed young people between the ages of 16 and 30. It does not take an Einstein or anyone skilled in figures to multiply this figure across the dominion and to realize that such figures as have been presented by the Canadian youth congress and others are, after all, not so very wide of the mark.
The most glaring example of the minister's effort to present figures in a favourable light was in regard to those on relief. With all due deference to his desire to "search out and present the truth", I could not help being amazed at the way in which he presented his figures with respect to those on relief.
At the time of his speech a month ago the latest figure available showed 978,000 on relief. In presenting this figure the minister said, with no small degree of pride, that those who were on rural relief were less in number substantially than those who were on rural relief a year ago. He admitted, quite frankly and properly, that the number of those on urban relief was slightly in excess of the number last year. Since that speech there has been given out by his own department, under date April 8, a press release dealing with
'4	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
the unemployment relief figures. In February of this year, there were 1,012,000, an increase of nearly 4 per cent over January, according to the figures revised to date, but slightly more than 3 per cent less than in February, 1938. The dominion total of unemployed but fully employable persons on relief in February this year was 190,000. The figure for February of this year represented an increase of 8-6 per cent over February a year ago. A total of 694,000 persons were receiving non-agricultural aid, which shows a net increase of about 6 per cent over the February figure of 1938. There were 318,000 persons reported as receiving agricultural aid or subsistence in February, which is 18 per cent less than in February, 1938.
It was in that figure that the minister found his chiefest joy when he reported that those on rural relief were less in February. That is according to academic definition. In making that statement, in his desire to search out and to present the truth, the minister ignored completely the heaviest bill for rural relief which this dominion has ever paid. I wonder if the minister would regard pegging the price of wheat to the tune of $60,000,000 as a relief measure. It does not come under his department, but under the department of a fellow minister. But according to his definition, inasmuch as it is not under his department, it is not included in his figure. Would the minister regard $22,000,000 for feed and seed voted at the last session as a relief measure?


Mr. GOLDING:: It was for drought.


Denton Massey: Yes, but it is still relief.


William Henry Golding: What is the sense of putting that in with unemployment?


Denton Massey: We are discussing unemployment and agricultural distress. If the hon. member would pay attention he would be more intelligent in his interruptions. I have mentioned $60,000,000 for pegging the price of wheat, and $22,000,000 for feed and seed, and I ask, is that relief or is it not? Of course, it is relief of a sort, relief to prevent relief.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is the hon. member asking me a question?


Denton Massey: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would answer in these terms, that the pegging of the price of wheat at the price fixed might be regarded as a measure of relief, but the relief was not confined to those in western Canada. It established or maintained a market in western Canada which undoubtedly had beneficial effects throughout the entire country.


Denton Massey: I am not complaining about it, I may say to those who are applauding to my left. I am not complaining in any manner whatever, nor did I complain when the measure was introduced, nor shall I complain. But I do say that it is a measure of relief and therefore the minister cannot boast of a decrease of 18 per cent of those on relief. If we had spent $82,000,000 and had not obtained a decrease it would have been a peculiar state of affairs.


Mr. THORSON:: Include all subventions and subsidies, then.


Denton Massey: I am citing only one by way of illustration. My hon. friend has made my point very much stronger, because the figures the minister presented of those receiving relief did not embrace all who were given assistance.


Mr. DONNELLY:: All the manufacturers receive relief when we give them protection.


Denton Massey: And the hon. member is one who would take it off.


James J. Donnelly: Surely. If we are to take away relief from the farmers, why not take it away from the manufacturers?


Denton Massey: The hon. member would abolish protection and increase the relief bill. I presume, Mr. Speaker, I am making this speech. If I may be allowed to continue I will refer once again to the minister's speech.
I suggest that, in accordance with his own observation, that it is "the part of wisdom to search out and present the truth," he should keep in mind the suggestion of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson), which I am sure he made honestly to the minister, that he include all subventions instead of presenting relief figures that do not represent the true picture. That would be in the mind of the hon. member for Selkirk,' I am quite sure.


Norman McLeod Rogers: According to my hon. friend we are all on relief.


Denton Massey: We shall be if this government remains in power much longer.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Hon. members opposite will be on relief after the next election.


Denton Massey: I suggest, in the light of the minister's statement that it is the part of wisdom to search out and present the truth, that we forget academic definitions. Let us face the facts, as I claim the minister did not; let us bear in mind his own admonition when he criticized another hon. gentleman whose words he could not quote under the rules of

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
this house, because that other hon. gentleman used an illustration in the course of an argument which did present facts, facts which were not very pleasant. Again the minister took umbrage and said in regard to this gentleman, "At all events it has been stated by one who ought to know better, regardless of where he now is." I cannot help Ibut feel, as I review some of the statements made iby the minister during the course of his speech, such as that " no one can seriously urge that this government has not met the challenge of unemployment," and further that " this government has done as much as any government could do in order to stimulate the building industry of this country," they are made by one who as a result of his position " ought to know better."
Prior to the minister's speech I had prepared an extensive summary of the unemployment situation in this dominion, and was prepared to present it to the house under four headings, namely: the size of the problem; the nature of the problem; a review of such efforts as the government has made to meet the problem; and what can and should be done to meet the problem.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Hear, hear. The last is the important one.


Denton Massey: I shall come to it. I am not sure what useful purpose can be served by any of us making suggestions to the government when its policy has been disclosed as a " do-nothing " policy, except to pay out money and more money for temporary work, public works, and supply moneys to buy food barely sufficient to keep those on relief from starving to death. That is the policy of this government. I am, however, prepared to take the time of the house to-day in an attempt to present a true picture, to search out the truth and present the truth of the present situation in Canada in relation to this great problem of unemployment. Being a confirmed optimist, I plan to present to the government, before I sit down, several constructive suggestions in connection with the problem of unemployment, suggestions which are designed to provide permanent employment in Canada and to develop the resources of this dominion in the fullest possible way.
Before entering upon this discussion, however, may I refer hon. members to my own remarks in reply to the minister, as reported on page 1937 of Hansard of March 15:
I shall not, however, attempt to discuss the problem of agricultural distress, though I plan to speak upon this great question at a later date. I realize fully that this problem is irre-ducibly linked up to its twin problem of unemployment, and that a healthy condition of agriculture is tantamount to a prosperous Canada.
Does the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) hear that? I repeat it:
I realize that this problem is irreducibly linked to its twin problem of unemployment, and that a healthy condition of agriculture is tantamount to a prosperous Canada. Sufficient to say now that the government has treated the agricultural situation for the last three and a hall years as a succession of emergencies. By reason of this policy the problem of agricultural distress has in fact become a succession of emergencies. Surely the facing of these successive crises as isolated individual phenomena does not constitute an agricultural policy.


James J. Donnelly: Who is the wise man
who said that?


Denton Massey: I said that. No one who
speaks in this chamber or outside knows in exact figures the extent of unemployment in Canada. I think the minister will agree with me there. However, we do know that the extent of the problem is such that, directly or indirectly, it reaches into every home in this dominion, and in some homes to the extent of their complete disruption or destruction. Everyone in Canada-no matter what his position, no matter how anxious he may be to minimize the facts, no matter what his desire to point out, in the words of the minister, that the situation of this country is relatively better than that of other countries, and that there are those in other countries who look upon the position here with envy and respect -is forced to admit that we are facing the most acute economic crisis in the history of our dominion, and that to-day democracy is threatened internally in Canada as never before.	.
I do not criticize the minister for not presenting exact figures; for, as I said, such figures are not available. But I do take issue with him sharply when by resort to academic definition he attempts to minimize the situation and fails to face the facts.
My approach to this problem will be through figures which are available from what may be regarded as the most authoritative source. They are not entirely accurate, and there are of course in them certain approximations, but I think the minister will agree that if every figure I use comes from the bureau of statistics I am on fairly safe ground. Accordingly, in the remarks which follow, I shall not use a single figure which has not been given to me by the bureau of statistics.
I have in my hand a table. I am going to quote several of these figures, and as the minister had the privilege extended to him by the house of placing several tables upon Hansard, I would ask if I might have that same privilege in reply this afternoon.



Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Mr. SPEAKER:: With the permission of
the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Walter Edward Foster: I understand the hon.
member has the unanimous permission of the house.


Denton Massey: I appreciate that, and I
thank hon. members through you, Mr. Speaker. This table is built up from data
estimate of employment and unemployment for the years 1931 to 1938 inclusive, showing an estimated percentage employed; the number of wage earners employed and the number unemployed; the number of persons in gainful occupations, and the number of independent or "no pay" workers. It is partly reproduced on page 288 of census monograph No. 11, to which I shall refer shortly.
supplied by the bureau of statistics.			It is an	The figures are as		follows:
	(From data supplied by the Bureau of Statistics) Estimate of employment and unemployment (000's omitted) No. of Wage- Index of No. 1 No. of earners No. of					
Year	Esti-	Esti-	of Wage-	Wage-	unem-	personsmated	mated	earners	earners	ployed	in gain-P.C. Em-	P.C. Em-	em-	(Col. 3-	(Col. 4-	fill occu-ployed	ployed	ployed	Col. 2)	Col. 3)	pations(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)1931	(All figures are averages for	year unless	otherwise noted)	(8 mos.	May-Dec.)	98-6	81-9	2,106	2.572	466	3.9491932 .. ..	89-2	73-9	1,820	2.463	643	4.0171933 .. ..	88-5	73-3	1,788	2.439	651	4.0891934 .. ..	95-8	79-4	2.009	2.530	521	4.1571935 .. ..	97-6	80-9	2,056	2.541	485	4,2301936 .. ..	100-4	83-2	2,142	2.575	433	4.2971937 .. ..	105-4	87-4	2,369	2,711	342	4.3661938 .. ..	102-4	84-9	2,297	2,706	409	4.439Month of	Dec., 1932	84-6	70-1	1,670	2.382	712	4.049Dec., 1935	97-2	80-6	2,041	2.532	491	4.261Dec., 1936	99-8	82-7	2,137	2.584	447	4.328Dec., 1937	104-0	86-2	2,377	2.758	381	4.398Dec., 1938	99-5	82-5	2,225	2,697	472	4,472Let it be	noted that there was an	average	crease of	184,000 in	the number
No. of independent or "no pay" workers (Col. 6-Col.4) (7)
1.377
1,554
1,650
1,627
1,689
1,722
1,655
1,733
1,667
1,729
1,744
1.640
1,775
of 651,000 unemployed in Canada in 1933;
485.000	in 1935, and 409,000 in 1938. That is to say, the number of unemployed decreased from the high of 1933 to the end of 1935- that is during the last two years under the late administration-by 32-8 per cent; whereas there has been a decrease of only 15-6 per cent, or less than half, in the first three years under the present administration.
In the month of December last there were
2.225.000	wage-earners employed in Canada, and 472,000 wage-earners were unemployed. Three years ago, in December, 1935, there were
2.041.000	wage-earners employed and 491,000 unemployed. Three years before that in December, 1932, there were 1,670,000 employed and 712,000 unemployed.
Let us draw conclusions from these figures. In the last three years, from December, 1935, to December, 1938, there has been a net in-

earners employed, and a net decrease of 19,000 only in the number of wage-earners unemployed. In the three years from December, 1932, to December, 1935, there was a gain of
371,000	in the number of wage-earners employed and a decrease of 221,000 in the number of wage-earners unemployed. This means that in the first three years of the administration of the right hon. gentleman who now leads the government the increase in employment was half as great as during the last three years of the previous administration. The reduction in unemployment during the same period of time under the administration of the right hon. gentleman has been only 8-6 per cent of what the late government was able to achieve. It all boils down to this, Mr. Speaker, that according to the best figures available the only boast this government can make, after three and a half years

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
of administration, is that unemployment has decreased by 19,000, while there are still
472,000	wage-earners in Canada unemployed. I claim that these figures constitute the greatest condemnation of the policies of the present administration that it is possible to present to this house.
Now let us turn to a publication of the bureau of statistics entitled "Geographical distribution of the manufacturing industries of Canada, 1936." If we turn to page 3 we find table 1, giving an historical summary of statistics of manufacturing for the dominion, 1870 to 1936, in other words the number of those employed in our secondary industries. If we look at 1919 we find that there were employed in the secondary industries of Canada in that year 694.000 people, in round figures. Then if we look at 1936 we find that the number employed in the secondary industries of Canada during that year was also 594.000, in round figures. In other words there has been no increase from 1919 to 1936 in the number of those employed in our secondary industries; yet my hon. friend from Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) talks about the evil of protection given the manufacturing industries. There has been no increase in the number employed, but taking the few years from 1929 to 1937 there was an increase in our population between the ages of six and sixty-four years of 927.000. Has this increase been absorbed proportionately by'our secondary industries? Of course it has not. During the last three years in particular world conditions have improved substantially, as I shall indicate in just a moment; but with world conditions improved, has employment in Canada followed the same trend? I have in my
hand page 502 from the Canada Year Book of 1938, where I find a chart showing the trend of the index numbers of world trade during the years 1929 to 1937. From 1933 to 1935 the index of world trade increased only five points while manufacturing employment in Canada increased twenty per cent. But between 1935 and 1937, when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, the index of world trade increased twenty points while manufacturing employment increased only 17-8 per cent.
Let me turn to another publication of the bureau of statistics entitled "Business conditions in Canada during the calendar year 1938, compared with 1937." From this publication I have prepared a chart illustrating the economic situation in Canada in 1938, 1937, 1935 and 1933. calculated from business conditions in Canada in the years 1938, 1937, 1935 and 1933, as published by the bureau of statistics. In preparing this chart I have attempted to be preeminently fair to hon. gentlemen opposite, with an eye to world conditions, which in 1937 reached a high, during the years of the present administration. Accordingly I have included 1937 in this chart, and in accordance with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I ask that it be placed on Hansard.


Walter Edward Foster: If there is no objection
the hon. gentleman may place the table on Hansard, but only with the consent of the house.


Denton Massey: I thank you, Mr. Speaker,
and through you hon. members of the house.
The chart is as follows:
71492-173 i

Statistics Illustrating Economic Situation in Canada, 1938, 1937, 1935, 1933 Table calculated from "Business Conditions in Canada", Years 1938, 1937, and 1935 Published by Dominion Bureau of Statistics
							Percentage Change: Increase (+) Decrease (-)					
Item	Basis	1938	1937	1935	1933	1938 from 1937	1938 from 1936	1938 from 1935	1937 from 1935	1935 from 1933	1935-38 from 1933-35	1935-37 from 1933-35Index physical volume of business	1926 = 100	112-9	122-7	102-4	79-7	- 8-0	+ 0-6	+10-2	+19-8	+ 28-5	- 18-3	- 8-7Manufacturing employment	1926 = 100	111-0	114-4	97-1	80-9	- 3-0	+ 7-4	+14-3	+17-8	+ 20-0	- 5-7	- 2-2Wholesale prices	1926=100	78-6	84-5	72-1	67-1	- 7-0	+ 5-4	+ 9-0	+17-2	+ 7-5	+ 1-5	+ 9-7Index common stock prices	1926=100	104-1	127-0	93-7	68-6	-18-0	-12-6	+11-1	+35-5	+ 36-6	- 25-5	- 1-1Mineral production	1926=100	194-7	189-7	149-4	110-5	+ 2-6	+19-6	+30-4	+27-0	+ 35-2	- 4-8	- 8-2Manufacturing production	1926=100	107-5	123-4	100-5	79-9	- 12-9	- 5-5	+ 6-9	+22-8	+ 25-8	- 18-9	- 3-0Newsprint	Tons	2,624,580	3,638,244	2,753,289	2,016,742	-28-0	-17-5	- 4-7	+32-1	+ 36-5	- 41-2	- 4-4Exports of planks and boards..	Feet	1,667,088,000	1,858,352,000	1,337,041,000	1,017,837,000	-10-3	- 4-7	+24-7	+39-0	+ 31-4	- 6-7	+ 7-6Pig iron	Long tons	705,099	897,855	599,799	227,317	-21-6	+ 4-0	+17-5	+49-7	+163-9	-146-4	-114-2Automobiles	Number	166,142	207,000	172,877	65,852	-19-7	+ 2-5	- 3-9	+19-7	+162-2	-166-5	-142-9Construction contracts awarded	$	187,277,900	224,056,700	160,305,000	97,289,800	-16-4	+15-2	+16 9	+39-8	+ 69-8	- 47-9	- 45-8Building permits	$	60,855,610	55,634,610	46,560,623	21,776,496	+ 9-0	+47-3	+30-8	+19-5	+ 112-3	- 81-5	- 92-8Exports	$	956,726,055	1,114,492,512	742,352,525	537,783,439	-15-0	- 6-9	+28-9	+50-1	+ 38-0	- 9-1	+ 12-1Imports	s	677,451,354	808,896,325	550,314,551	401,214,311	-16-2	+ 6-7	+23-2	+47-0	+ 37-2	- DO	+ 9-8
to
- i

2
o

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
ArtUL 13, 1939	2739
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
It becomes readily apparent, then, as one looks at this chart that the size of the problem of employment and unemployment has increased rather than diminished during the term of office of hon. gentlemen opposite; for the slight increase in the number of those employed is in no way commensurate with the increase in our population; and even in these figures which I have placed upon Hansard there is no recognition of the scores of thousands-I believe there to be hundreds of thousands, from my own contact with the situation-of young Canadians who have yet to find their first jobs.
The very nature of the problem with which this government is supposed to be dealing apparently has been ignored. I have in my hand one of the most excellent publications it has been my privilege to read in connection with unemployment. It is issued by our own bureau of statistics and is entitled "Census monograph No. 11: Unemployment." I regard it as a most important publication; for within its nearly four hundred pages is given in understandable detail the whole theory of unemployment and its possible cure. I should like to read many extracts from this publication, but without taking time to do so I would refer hon. members to page 23, where it says in part:
It has been shown that nearly a third of the wage earners received less than $450 in the year preceding the census, their average being $220, i.e., at best they had only part time work and not enough to live on. The conclusion seems to be that there is a tendency for these to increase in proportion to the others with the passage of time. It goes without saying, then, that the proper picture of the employment situation is not given when viewed from the standpoint of industry. From the latter standpoint it is expansion and contraction that are emphasized. It is taken for granted that increase in employment means decrease in unemployment. From the standpoint of the census of workers this does not follow. Decrease in employment may merely mean that a considerable proportion of the workers are little worse off than before, while the remainder are very much worse off.
Then I find these words on page 34:
The usual view of unemployment assumes that the person who is unemployed to-day may be employed to-morrow, and that in general if A is employed to-day and B is not employed, the situation' will be reversed another day. The present findings are that this is not so-
I commend to hon. members the conclusions stated at the bottom of that page:
(1)	that a concentration of the workers in such a way that in a large country like Canada they are found in spots, not evenly distributed, increases the distance between the producer and consumer and thereby decreases consumption;
(2)	that any activity which tends to create workers for temporary work is injurious. But another principle must be recognized first, viz..
that the Euclidian axiom "The whole is greater than its parts" is not true when applied to humanity. Rather humanity must be looked upon as an aggregate of individuals to each of whom his daily bread is more important than what happens to the whole; moreover, the satisfaction of this need of the individual will determine what will happen to the race.
Then on pages 29 and 30 there is a short discussion of the effect of immigration on unemployment, which I further commend to the attention of hon. members. There are many pages in this book which I should like to quote fully, but time does not permit.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Does it advocate immigration?


Denton Massey: I will read it to my hon. friend:
The immigration occurred during low unemployment but kept up until unemployment rose almost to the peak. Emigration then started and it was accompanied (or followed) by decreasing unemployment. This, of course, introduces a widely different concept of unemployment from that generally accepted, viz., that unemployment is merely the opposite of employment.
Unemployment only partly declined with increasing employment. As noticed, it also increased with increasing numbers of wage-earners and decreased with decreasing numbers of wage-earners. Immigration was no doubt accompanied by other inward movements into the ranks of the wage-earners-from farms, small owned establishments and from school; emigration was accompanied by return to these sources, so that immigration and emigration were only symptoms of more general movements. The conclusion is that unemployment (in so far as the population is concerned) can be caused by two things (1) decline of shrinkage in business and (2) increase in the number of wage-earners; it can be cured by (1) increase in business activities but only if accompanied by (2) exodus from the ranks of the wage-earners. The lowest point of unemployment would logically be not at the point of greatest business activity but at a point w-here activity becomes normal after a period of exodus and before a period of in-rush.


William Henry Golding: I wonder if the hon.
member has the record of production in the secondary industries for the years to which he has been referring? He has given us the number employed, and I had in mind the extent to which modern machinery has displaced men in industry.


Denton Massey: I was coming to that. I think by the time I have finished I shall have covered the subject fairly thoroughly. I thank my hon. friend for his suggestion. I think he will find a complete answer to his question, from the point of view of the theory concerned, on pages 385, 386 and 387 of the census monograph.
In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald), I have in my hand a chart showing the net
2740	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
increase in population in Canada, in the age group sixteen to sixty-four years. This chart is divided to show the immigrants arriving from the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries; Canadians returned from the United States; emigrants from Canada to the United States; United States citizens returning to the United States from Canada; net increase in population and population of Canada between the ages of sixteen and sixty-four years. I should like to place this table upon Hansard if I may.


Walter Edward Foster: If there is no objection. I do not think this practice should become too general, or all hon. members will be wanting to place tables on Hansard. Under
the rules, the Minister of Finance is the only one who is permitted to place tables on Hansard when he is making his financial statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Walter Edward Foster: If this practice becomes too general, every hon. member will be placing tables on the record.


William Ross Macdonald: This is valuable information, and I think we should have it.


Denton Massey: I appreciate your indulgence. Mr. Speaker, and also the indulgence of all hon. members of this house.
The table is as follows:



NET INCREASE IN POPULATION OF CANADA-AGE GROUP 16-64 YEARS

[Stage Direction]
Immigrant arrivals from U.S., Rnd nt.hftr nniint.rips	U.K.,	Canadians	Emigrants	U.S. citizens	Net	Populationreturned	from	returning	increase	of CanadaOther	from	Canada to	to U.S.	in popu-	16-64 yearsYear	u.s.	U.K.	countries	Total	U.S.	U.S.	from Canada	lation	of age1923. .	. . 16,716	70.110	46,903	133,729	117,011	1924. .	. . 16,042	57.612	50,510	124.164	37,317	200.690	1925. .	. . 17,717	35,362	31,828	84,907	39.987	100,895	5,636.0001926. .	. . 20,944	48,819	66,219	135,982	62.293	91.019	99.000	5,735.0001927. .	. . 23,818	52,940	82,128	158.886	42,078	81,506	119.000	5,854.0001928. .	. . 29,933	55.848	81.002	166.783	34,120	73,605	107,000	5,961.0001929. .	. . 31,852	66.801	66.340	164.993	30,479	64,440	127,000	6,088.0001930. .	. . 25,632	31.709	47,465	104,806	31.608	63.502	122,000	6,210.0001931. .	. . 15,195	7,678	4,657	27,530	20.352	21.687	101.000	6,311.0001932. .	. . 13,709	3,327	3.555	20.591	18,220	7,927	116.000	6,427.0001933. .	. . 8.500	2,304	3,578	14,382	10,209	6.074	116.000	6,543.0001934. .	. . 6.071	2,166	4,239	12.476	7,272	5.751	110,000	6,653,0001935. .	. . 5,291	2,103	3,883	11,277	6 378	8,018	123.000	6,776.0001936. .	. . 4,876	2,197	4.570	11.643	5,168	12,748	106.000	6,882.0001937. .	. . 5,555	2.859	6.687	15.101	5,167	17,224	133,000	7,015.0001938. .	. . 5,833	3,389	8,022	17,244	4.659	19,255	120,000	7,135,000
It will be noted that in 1925 the population of Canada in the age group of sixteen to sixty-four years was 5,363,000; by 1938 this figure had increased to 7,135,000, a net increase of 1,772,000. Of course, it is obvious that all those between the ages of sixteen and sixty-four years, both male and female, are not going to look for work, either on the farm or in our manufacturing or primary or secondary industries, but it does follow that if we increase our population in that age group by just under 2,000,000 in thirteen years, there must be an increase in the number of available jobs unless unemployment is to increase shockingly.
This brings us to the point raised by the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding) a few moments ago, the shifting of vocational pursuits. As a result of technocracy and other such matters, new vocations must constantly be found for those whose jobs have been replaced, either by machines or by shifting

economies. For example, as more hydro electric power is consumed, as more oil is consumed, the less coal will be required. Therefore, there at once comes a slack in the coal industry of Canada, and unless that slack is taken up by some outside means, there is at once permanent unemployment in our coal fields. There has been a shift in our economy-not as a result of inefficiency, not as a result of exploitation, not as a result of any one thing; but that there has been such a shift in our economy is beyond question.
Next, there is the problem of the stop-gap job, a problem which is seldom mentioned in this house but one which is of immense importance. I fancy that the minister has found in connection with his work, as I have found in my own small way, that there is an ever-increasing number of young men and young women who are taking any job they can get in order to tide themselves over " until the day breaks and the shadows flee

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
away." There are hundreds upon hundreds, yes, thousands upon thousands of young people in Canada to-day who have been trained well and efficiently, either in our secondary schools, in our technical schools or in our universities, who are doing anything at all in order to keep some small amount coming into the home. All through this dominion we have those who have been trained as skilled artisans, as machinists, who are doing odd jobs for a few dollars a week. There are those who have been trained as engineers, there are those who have been trained in other professions and who are doing any kind of work they can get in order to earn a living. There is a great readjustment necessary throughout this whole country in order to bring into line those who are out of line with their training.
Fourth, there is the question of the reestablishment and readjustment of Canadian youth. I do not think I can touch upon any single subject in this chamber that should have a greater humanitarian appeal or a greater national appeal to all hon. members, regardless of where in the chamber they sit, than the appeal of youth, the very lifeblood of Canada. After all, if we dissipate our youth we are paving the way to the complete ruination of this country; we are undermining its very foundation. I have full sympathy for the one who is older, the head of a family, the man of fifty or sixty who is unemployed; I have full sympathy with him, and let that not be misunderstood. However, such a man has passed the prime of life, but here we have the youth coming on to fill the job which the older man had. As a result of conditions beyond his control, as a result of his unfortunate inability to procure the necessary training, he has been required to drift about this country from one place to another, bringing on the gradual degradation of the individual himself.
The transient unemployed, of which the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) was speaking this afternoon, presents one of the most serious problems in this dominion. Perhaps there are those who regard these splendid fellows-I speak of them as such because I know many of them-as being ready to propagate sedition throughout Canada, as having lost touch with the spirit of democracy, as being essentially rowdies or persons who are prepared to take the bounty of relief and do nothing about it. I disagree with that. I know many of these men personally and I am ready to place them among our finest Canadians.
Next there is the great question of seasonal occupations. After all, if we revert to academic definitions, when we see that a man
is employed we write him down as one who has a job, even though that job may be for only eight months in the year. His earnings during that period must carry him over the other four months of the year. What about unemployment insurance? I shall return to that shortly.
Then there is the most pathetic of all the problems with which we have to deal, the problem of the unemployable unemployed. This is the man who would probably still have a job had it not been for the conditions that faced this world of ours in 1929 and 1930, had it not been for circumstances over which, God knows, he had absolutely no control. To-day he finds the "not wanted" sign hanging out for a man of his years. As a result perhaps of a physical disability incurred during the period of deprivation, such a man is no longer physically capable of doing the work which he used to do; or perhaps he is a man, advanced in years, and although he be physically fit and able-bodied, ready to go to work, he is told he is not wanted because he is too old.
I cannot possibly overestimate, Mr. Speaker, the gravity of the situation from the humanitarian and moral point of view, nor can the incipient danger to democracy as a result of ineffective or inactive government be overestimated. I wonder how much longer red-blooded Canadians, to use a phrase not unknown to my honoured leader, will be satisfied to eke out an existence on part-time wages or upon relief. How much longer will Canadian youth, noted for its virility and vigour, be satisfied to find that one hopeless day is destined to follow another hopeless day? Patience, Mr. Speaker, ceases to be a virtue after a while. Patience is a virtue only up to a certain point, and hon. gentlemen opposite must bear in mind that intolerable conditions will be endured for just so long. When government inaction or ineffective action becomes unpalatable, action is sought by other means. That has proven itself through history to be axiomatic. If we would retain our present form of government in Canada, if we would retain the democracy which is ours, the government of Canada is called upon to take swift and courageous action, action to meet the problem of unemployment by the creation of permanent jobs, to eliminate the hazards resulting from part-time employment, and to develop opportunities for the ever-increasing number of our unemployed young wage earners who have yet to find their first job.
Mr. VIEN:: I thought it had been promised in 1930.
2742	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Denton Massey: I am not concerned with what was promised in 1930 or what was not, but I am concerned with 1939, and so my hon. friend should be. We are living in the present and not in the past. I do not expect to rake up the past-


Thomas Vien: The speech would have been more effective in 1934 than it is to-day.


Denton Massey: My speech is apparently too effective to suit the hon. gentleman, or he would not have interrupted.
I refer, Mr. Speaker, to a memorandum submitted to the government of Canada by the Canadian Federation of Labour and appearing in the January issue of the Labour Review, I shall read one paragraph of it in full:
In the opinion of the Canadian Federation of Labour, unemployment is the Achilles heel of democracy. No matter how obvious is the lesson of experiments in economic regimentation conducted in other lands during the last twenty years, unemployed citizens need to be armed with a strong resolution to reject promises of fodder at the price of freedom. If the regimentation of a nation's industry necessitates in turn the repression of criticism, the abrogation of free speech, and the imposition of autocracy -as it has done in the old world east of the Khine-then the only hope of preserving democracy would appear to lie in proving that poverty and destitution are not inevitable byproducts of a free economy, that a pauperized reserve of labour is not a requisite of private industrial enterprise. For only when that proof is furnished will the clamour for a "new" economic system subside. It is believed that the very existence of a free and democratic Canada depends upon the solution of the unemployment problem, just as autocracy in other countries is buttressed by a vivid recollection of the involuntary idleness from which it gave escape. Diligent though the government of Canada has been in applying palliatives for unemployment, the federation feels that further efforts in that direction are urgently needed, and that there is even greater need for permanent provision against the chronic unemployment which afflicts great masses of workers with the fluctuations of the primary industries.
I fully agree, Mr. Speaker, with the Canadian Federation of Labour when it refers to unemployment as " the Achilles heel of democracy," and says that " unemployed citizens need to be armed with strong resolution to reject promises of fodder at the price of freedom." As a result of the very nature of the problem of unemployment, there is a cure, there is a remedy. There is only one cure and there is only one remedy. To reduce it to its simplest possible terms, let it be stated that the cure and the remedy lie in the creation of jobs, permanent jobs. In a country such as ours, where we have yet merely scratched the surface of our unlimited resources-was the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) muttering again?


Mr. MARTIN:: Will the hon. member allow me to say what was in my mind?


Denton Massey: Certainly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have been patiently
waiting for a long time to hear my hon. friend's suggestions for the cure.


Denton Massey: And the hon. member is going to wait some little time yet before I come to that, but I shall give them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have to catch a train.


Denton Massey: Perhaps the hon. member will go back to deal with the unemployed in Windsor.
In a country such as ours, as I was saying, Mr. Speaker, we have yet merely scratched the surface. We have unlimited resources just waiting to be tapped. We have a country wide in area and rich in every gift of nature. Yet in the face of these facts, in the face of this knowledge which is in our possession, the government itself admits defeat and says it can do nothing about the situation. Does any hon. member suggest that the government does not say that? No. They agree; the government says there is nothing that can be done.


An hon. MEMBER:: We do not.


Denton Massey: Just look at the legislative program of the government to-day; is there anything there for the relief of unemployment except the palliative measures which have been brought down since 1930, to go back to the year which the hon. member (Mr. Vien) mentioned? The creation of casual employment through public works is only a palliative -by no means a cure. It must be borne in mind that whereas public works have their place and are desirable up to a point, they do not create permanent employment, and if we put every man to work to-morrow on some public works project, the minister himself would foe the first to admit that we are still a long way from meeting the problem of unemployment. The fact of the matter is that due to increases in our population as a result of immigration and patural causes, due to a changed economy both within and without our nation, it becomes perforce necessary for the federal administration to apply a principle which has been used in -business successfully ever since business became successful.
I have always understood that when a business man finds a surfeit in the markets for his product he is alert and astute to find new uses for it, new variations, new adaptations, and so he either discovers or creates new markets. The only possible method by which we can hope to cope with the problem of

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
unemployment is by the simple method employed by the business man, of finding further outlets for the activities of those who would be employed. Increases in our export trade alone, when domestically we consume eighty per cent of our own production, are not enough to absorb our employable unemployed and those who come on the labour market every year. The primary activity of this government then should be the development of our domestic market, the expansion of our internal industries both primary and secondary. Here is a practical function of government the neglect of which constitutes the most hideous betrayal of the electorate of Canada.
The unemployed of this country are not interested in theories of government; they are not interested in political theories or in the political patronage which this or any other government chances to operate under and dispenses. They are interested solely in getting jobs-a fair day's pay earned by a fair day's work.
Let us turn to see what the government has done in discharge of its obligation toward the development of Canada for Canadians. From the figures I have already brought to the attention of this house it is obvious that the problem of unemployment is still with us, and in spite of what the government may claim to have done, this problem has really changed only to the extent that so pathetically many of our unemployed have become unemployable. In 1935 when this government came into power it did so with the understanding of the Canadian people that it would improve the lot of the man on the street. But I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite, in the face of the facts, in the face of results achieved after three and a half years, to meet the man on the street who is still unemployed or who is looking for his first job and convince him that the present administration has a clear conception of the problem at hand and is dealing with it in a productive and a constructive manner. Speeches alone are not enough. Academic theories and theoretical discussions are not enough. It is not sufficient for the government merely to say that it is deeply concerned with this whole matter. The man who is out of work, the youth who cannot find a job, is concerned with one thing and with one thing only, and that is results- what this government can do and should do and is prepared to do to improve his lot and to build for the security of his home, if he is fortunate enough still to have one. Men will be patient if they recognize that the government is trying. Men will be patient if they realize that everything is being done
which can be done. But men will be impatient when they realize that apparently, from the point of view of results, the federal administration is blind and deaf to the situation.
Speaking as reported at page 220 of Hansard this year, the minister said this:
The leader of the opposition and others of his group who have taken part in this debate from time to time have accused this government of inaction. They may say it has been wrong action, but in the light of that paragraph and in the light of the results obtained under those policies they cannot accuse the government of inaction with respect to this problem.
I shall take the minister at his word.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend read what follows?


Denton Massey: I have not here the copy of Hansard. The minister has it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe my hon. friend left out the most important part.


Denton Massey: I shall take the minister at his word and endeavour to be completely fair in any factual resume of the alleged accomplishments to which he refers. It is obvious that the emergency problems of the early thirties have become permanent problems. But can the minister point to one single effort to deal with the situation to-day which can be regarded as other than an emergency measure, and an emergency measure which, when employed by the former government, was so bitterly criticized by those who form the present government? It may be said ' without fear of successful contradiction that the government of to-day is temporizing with the results of unemployment rather than dealing with its cause. Anaemic, palliative measures do not create permanent jobs, but simply provide casual employment-a fact with which the minister agrees in language but not in action. Let me refer to a speech made by the hon. gentleman in this house on February 17, 1936, as reported at page 243 of Hansard:
I wish this government could put every ablebodied man to work to-morrow, and I am quite sure that desire is shared by every member of the government. However I cannot advocate such a policy because I do not believe public employment through a vast scheme of public works is anything more than a palliative for our present economic ills. I believe that ultimately it would create far greater economic distress than that which now exists.
There, Mr. Speaker, is a sound statement- mostly sound! The minister, himself a professor of economics, has surely realized the danger in the expenditure of millions for public works when little else is suggested by the government to create permanent employment.
2744	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
I have in my hand a pamphlet issued by the National Liberal Federation of Canada, 114 Wellington Street, Ottawa. It was issued during the general election of 1935, and is entitled, "The myth of public works-who will pay in the end?" We are now in a position to answer that question, but it is not the answer which was expected when the question was asked. The pamphlet states in part:
Since the first days of the depression, clamorous cries have gone out to the government to spend money on public works. Sometimes one wonders whether the ardour of the appeal arises from an honest desire to give aid to unemployment or if perchance, there is coupled with it a measure of anxiety to aid some contractor or purveyor of construction materials or machinery.
What have we got this year to create employment, except an extended public works program? Let me read further.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does my hon. friend-


Denton Massey: Will the minister permit me to finish the quotation?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly.


Denton Massey: It reads:
By its very nature the work is temporary. We cannot go on building roads continually in the least frequented sections of the community, the money spent constitutes purchasing power for a time and, for a time, becomes diffused throughout the entire community. There is a temporary stimulus to mercantile activities, but as this activity passes away the community wakes up to the fact that it has fastened upon itself obligations which definitely restrict the prosperity of the future. The boost to prices [DOT] given by artificial employment is withdrawn. It is a stimulant at best. It works only if the patient is recovering without assistance. _ It is a restraint to recovery in every other circumstance.
Then these closing words, Mr. Speaker:
After the debauch comes the awakening.
-And now, the minister?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I hope it will prove an awakening to my hon. friend. I was going to ask him just what section of the public works program as announced he would wish to curtail. I think he will find that the amount in that program for public buildings is not very much in excess of that of last year.


Denton Massey: I would not take exception to one single dollar of the public works program if there accompanied it some long-range program to create permanent employment. But when such a palliative measure alone is used-


Mr. WOOD:: The hon. member voted
against it.
[Mr. Massey.1


Denton Massey: Just a moment, please.
When a palliative measure alone is used, then comes the imminent danger to which reference is made in this very pamphlet, and with which the minister agrees-he stated so in the house.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What does my hon. friend mean by "permanent employment"?


Denton Massey: I am coming to that.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a long time
coming.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There is only one permanent job in this country.


Denton Massey: And the hon. member has not got it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am too young to go to the senate-yet.


Denton Massey: The hon. member is old enough to know better. But to get back, after these pleasantries. The minister has forgotten his speech of three years ago. After all, here is the program we have presented to us, to which the minister has made reference; and he asked me where I would propose any curtailment. I think the money for public works should be spent wisely.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It will be.


Denton Massey: I am afraid it will be spent foolishly. If it is spent wisely it will be a great change in policy. A program to create jobs, permanent jobs, is a program of permanent constructive value, but since there is no such program at the moment, but only a palliative program, we shall reach a period of danger. I believe the minister will agree.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I agree that my hon.
friend's rhetoric is better than his logic.


Denton Massey: I think that perhaps the hon. gentleman's intelligence is better than both, and he knows exactly what I mean.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not yet.


Denton Massey: Then I have overestimated it. Is there any one single project, nationwide in its effect, to put men into permanent positions, for which this government may take credit? Has there been any outstanding development, any new part of the country opened, any ingress or egress provided to heretofore inaccessible natural resources, any great nation-wide progressive program of any sort, any permanent program, carried out by this government? I think not. I suppose, however, and I was surprised to find that no hon. gentleman mentions it, especially the hon. member for Essex East, I shall be

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
referred to the trade treaties. Well, let us turn to Hansard of March 30, 1936, and see what the minister said then. At page 1593 he is reported as follows:
When we ask ourselves how we should approach the economic problem it seems to me it is evident that short range and long range measures will have to be applied. It is our view that if we are to secure a proper revival of industry in Canada it must be upon the basis of trade policies which will permit a more satisfactory exchange between this and other countries.
There, epitomized in the minister's own words, is the policy of the Liberal party, the pet theory of the Prime Minister, which he rushed to put into practice almost the day he came into office in 1935; and now again we have had brought into the house, to the accompaniment of fanfares and what could hardly be called refreshing modesty on the part of the Prime Minister, a new trade treaty. It is therefore abundantly evident that the intention of this government to assist in the revival of industry in Canada has been the development of an external rather than an internal policy, and that the position we are in at the moment may be regarded as the direct result of the application of this policy.
It is crystal clear that it has been the cherished hope of the Prime Minister and his government, that an increasing and heightening world condition would have the effect of so improving internal conditions in Canada that it would be necessary to do little or nothing internally, and that good times throughout the world would, to use the old hockey expression, skate us on-side. Let me say at once that even though on this side of the house we have been accused in the past of endeavouring to bring about a degree of economic nationalism in Canada at the sacrifice of foreign trade, this accusation is, of course, without foundation. The policy of my party has always been and always will be, I trust, to regard the development of our domestic market as of primary importance and the development of the export market as secondary. We are in no wise averse to trade treaties. We favour them of course, but we are Canadian enough, and. Mr. Speaker, note it, we are patriotic enough in our point of view to feel that in making a trade treaty we should place Canada first and give first consideration to the development of jobs for Canadian workmen and to improve the lot of the Canadian farmer. If any prime minister of this country does not take this attitude, then I feel that he is derelict in his duty and untrue to the people who put him in office.
Not so many weeks ago we in this house listened to the Prime Minister as he virtually lectured those of us who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, on the glories of patriotism and willingness to contribute to peace on earth and goodwill between nations. After the Prime Minister made that speech, the situation in Europe, I noticed, grew steadily worse. That is coincidental. We on this side of the house will take second place to none in our love of the mother country, of the empire, and of peace throughout the world, nor will we take second place to any man in our regard for patriotism in its purest and best form when it is not cloaked in a disguise, a pseudo-patriotism cloaking that which is virtually some pet political theory. Personally I feel that a policy which places Canada in a state of dependence upon the other countries of the world is fraught with the gravest dangers. WThereas export trade is of great value to Canada. I submit that we should never fail to realize that it is secondary, coming next to the domestic market.
If employment in Canada is to be dependent primarily upon the sale of our goods in world markets, then we are placed in a most precarious and hazardous position. For three years we have operated under the last trade treaty with the United States, and the net result of those three years, from 1935 to 1938, has been a reduction of 19,000 in unemployment, or four per cent. There was an increase of imports in what hon. gentlemen opposite choose to call the good year of 1937 over the year 1936, of 27-4 per cent, while exports increased only 8-4 per cent, less than one-third of the imports. That, translated into terms which the man on the street understands and understands clearly, means the loss of jobs to Canadian workmen while jobs are given workmen outside Canada. There is no other possible interpretation. If the government are ready and quick to take credit for increasing employment they must be just as ready and quick to take discredit for increasing unemployment which has been noted in the year just ended.
Let me refer hon. gentlemen to a summary of the trade for Canada to December, 1938, released recently by the bureau of statistics. This is one of the two remaining charts to which I referred and which I asked the house to permit me to place on Hansard, with your consent, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Edward Foster: With the unanimous consent of the house.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Agreed.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Denton Massey: I thank you and the house, Mr. Speaker. This is a summary of the trade of Canada up to December, 1938, giving imports
from and exports to the United Kingdom and the United States respectively for the years 1934 to 1938 inclusive:
Summary of the trade of Canada December, 1938
Published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics (000's omitted)
United Kingdom	United States
Excess of	Excess of
Imports Exports Imports ( -) Imports Exports Imports < - ) Year	from	to Exports ( + )	from	to	Exports ( + )1934	
113,416	298.132	+184,716	293,780	306.608	+	12,8291935	
116,670	307,714	+191,044	312,417	370,104	+	57,6881936	122,971	400,749	+277,778	369,142	417,546	+ 48,4051937	
147,292	405,897	+258,605	490,505	482,403	-	8,1021938	
119,268	363,411	+244,142	424,755	356,773	-	67,981
Change Increase ( + )
Decrease (-)
1935-38	 + 2,598	+ 55,697	+ 53,098	+112,338	- 13,331	-125,669
It will be noted from this chart that when hon. gentlemen opposite came into power we had a favourable balance in our trade with the United Kingdom of $191,000,000, and after three years that favourable balance had been increased to $244,000,000. But what has happened to our trade with the United States? The favourable balance of $58,000,000 which we had at the end of 1935 has disappeared. At the end of last year we had an adverse balance of $68,000,000, reflecting a net change of no less than $126,000,000. Let it be further noted that in the year 1938, compared to 1935, our exports to the United States decreased by $13,000,000, so that after three years of administration by the right hon. gentleman there was a net change in our exports to the United States of $13,000,000 against us. During that time we increased our imports $113,000,000. If we assume that only half of the value of these goods is represented by labour, here we have $63,000,000 of wages lost to Canadian workmen and farmers in our trade with the United States alone since my hon., friends came into office, which represents roughly the jobs of 50,000 Canadian workers. If we look at the trade picture for one year only we shall see that our total trade in 1938 decreased from that of the calendar year 1937 by 14-7 per cent and from that of the calendar year 1936 by 3 per cent. If the new trade treaty has the same effect in depressing employment throughout Canada that the old trade treaty had, then we are faced with a situation which is not very pleasant to contemplate. Surely in the light of the facts I have just given with regard to employment and trade, hon. gentlemen

opposite have no ground for complaint when we of the opposition attempt to draw their attention to an employment situation in this country which in so many ways is little better than it was when they came into office three and a half years ago.
It may further be demonstrated conclusively that the recession with which we are faced at the present time has little or nothing to do with our domestic market, but is a result of conditions outside of Canada, and the fact that we have been placed, by the policies of this government, in a state of semi-dependency upon the unstable market of the United States. Internally our trade last year held up very well. Let me again refer hon, gentlemen to "Business conditions in Canada, 1938." issued in February, 1939, pages 10 and 11. Let it be noted that our internal trade, as I have said, remained essentially stable, and that the change in our position was a result of the state of semi-dependency upon the United States in which we have been placed. I quote:
Excepting only in automotive and a few other lines dealing in durable or luxury merchandise, retail trade was well maintained compared with
1937.	Monthly sales from January to November for twelve lines of retail business dealing in food, clothing and household effects and requirements fluctuated within a limit of 8 per cent from the same period of 1937, while cumulative figures for the first eleven months reveal a decline of only 2-1 per cent from the preceding year.
Relative movements in urban and rural retail purchasing may be observed from results for department stores and country general stores, respectively. Department store sales averaged 3-9 per cent lower in the first eleven months compared with the same period of 1937. On the other hand, the sales of country general stores were fully maintained, gains in the prairie provinces offsetting losses in other regions of the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
country. The grocery trade was not only maintained but sales during the year were actually running ahead of 1937, according to monthly returns from a large number of chain store companies. Monthly comparisons were mainly favourable with the result that the average for the first eleven months was 2-2 per cent greater than in 1937.
Then a word on wholesale prices:
The reaction in wholesale prices after June, 1937, was unmistakable, presenting an unfavourable element in the trend of economic conditions. The main causes of the rise in the price level to an intermediate high point in the first half of 1937 are well known. The reversal in speculative demand for world commodities was an important element in the decline which set in toward the end of the year.
There is an indication, gathered from the bureau of statistics, that our internal trade held up well, was stable, and was rocked only, as I have said, by our present state of semi-dependency on the unstable market of the United States.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will
permit a question, will he not agree that the internal trade of this country depends to a great extent upon the purchasing power created in a large section of this country on the basis of export trade?


Denton Massey: I wonder whether the minister made that statement on the stump in 1935.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I certainly did; I made it everywhere, and will do so again.


Denton Massey: I do not recall having
listened to a single speech from a Liberal candidate or the Liberal leader in the campaign of 1935 that made even the slightest reference to world conditions.


Ernest Lapointe: You never came to our meetings.


Denton Massey: No, and I do not mean to, but I should be delighted if I were to have the privilege of hearing my right hon. friend expound the Liberal theory when he did not feel that his words would be taken down verbatim. No, the fact is clear and cannot be dodged; we are not going to improve our condition in Canada in any steady way except by concentration upon our problems within Canada. I think the minister will agree with that. And I propose to devote the next part of this speech to showing how internal conditions in Canada have been neglected by the present administration.
Let us go back to July 24, 1933. The present leader of the government was then the leader of the opposition. He was speaking in Virden, Manitoba, on the date I have mentioned. In part he said:
And what would the Liberal party do if returned to power?
It would deal with unemployment through a great national commission, including the provinces and the dominion, utilizing those great
bodies such as the Red Cross. This great commission would mould the relief agencies into one great cooperative commonwealth in the real sense of the word. And it would thus have solved the unemployment problem.
Apparently the right hon. gentleman was successful in persuading the people of Canada that such a commission would find a solution. At least he so convinced his new Minister of Labour, who ably caught the torch flung from Virden, Manitoba. At page 542 of Hansard of February 26, 1936, we read these words by the minister:
It is expected that through the instrumentality of the proposed national employment commission, worlcing in cooperation with business and industrial undertakings, additional avenues of employment will be found. A greater degree of cooperation will be sought in the national interest between the government and those agencies which have the power and understanding to meet the problem.
I wonder whether the people of Canada or the minister himself would have found the idea of this commission so palatable if they had realized prior to the election that after the much-heralded commission had deliberated at a cost of $325,549.26 and at long last produced its report, that report would have become essentially and automatically a dead letter and would be filed by one of the supporters of the government on the floor of the house beside his seat; and that as a net result of the efforts of the national employment commission the problem of unemployment would have been so little changed.
I have in my hand the final report of the national employment commission, dated January 26, 1938. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying, what I said in reviewing the report in this house last year, that in most ways it is a most praiseworthy report, the sort of report one would expect to be brought in by a commission presided over by so able a Canadian as Arthur B. Purvis and supported by so many other able Canadians. If time permitted I could go through this report and point out recommendation after recommendation which has been entirely ignored by the government. For example, turning to page 35 of the report we read the following:
Works undertaken in such programs should be those which have a definite value in promoting the competitive strength of Canadian industry, and in improving the conditions of life in the dominion. They may properly include:-
Building of highways to permit the development of mining, tourist and other resources;
Development and preservation of tourist regions;
Projects for the improvement and protection of public health and safety (such as provision of municipal pure water supply and sewage disposal projects, elimination of railway and highway grade crossings, et cetera);
Slum clearance and low rental housing schemes in urban areas;

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Forestry plans for extending and preserving forests;
Reclamation and conservation projects;
Land clearance and settlement projects where the conditions are clearly favourable to successful settlement.
Then turning to pages 20-21-22 of the intermediate report we find listed a summary of commission recommendations up to and including the time of the interim report. I could deal with all these recommendations, but I shall not tire the house by taking the time to do so. I will deal with four of them only; the second, for the national administration of the employment service of Canada; the fourth, covering the suggestions for the care and provision for homeless adults; the fifth, in regard to housing, and the sixth, in regard to the training and reconditioning of youth.
Take first the second recommendation, in regard to the employment service of Canada. The recommendation itself suggests that the service should be surveyed with the thought in mind of changing the location of the offices and rearranging the personnel of the office staff and the salaries paid, and that the whole organization of the national employment service should be put under federal administration. Such a complete survey was made and a report was submitted; but was there any change in this vital matter? There was none. Why? The minister gave the house the reason the other day in reply to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), on the introduction of his unemployment insurance resolution. At that time the minister said in essence it was the plan of the government that if unemployment insurance had become a "possibility" the act would have been administered through the employment bureau, but that since unemployment insurance had become essentially a dead letter, the employment bureau had remained unchanged. Such a skinny excuse! There is a further reason, perhaps, which the minister might have offered, namely, that the, change would have cost some $500,000, I believe, and that the government could not afford this expense, or did not deem it advisable to undertake it. Well, Mr. Speaker, each year hundreds of thousands of applications for work are made through this bureau, and the minister knows not only as a result of the report of the commission but also from his own experience that there is a high degree of inefficiency and ineffectiveness as a result of the fact that these offices are not under federal administration.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Would my hon. friend permit an explanation of that point?


Denton Massey: Surely.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I know he does not wish
to misrepresent the facts; I assume that without question. If he looks into the discussion on the estimates last year the hon. gentleman will find that the various provinces were approached with respect to the proposal that the dominion government take over the employment service; and on the part of those provinces which are the most highly industrialized there was a definite refusal to transfer the employment service to the dominion government. I take it my hon. friend would not suggest that in those circumstances it would be wise for the dominion government to duplicate an existing employment service across Canada.


Denton Massey: Quite. I based my remarks on a statement that came from the Department of Labour, a memorandum to the minister dated January 27, 1939, reading as follows:
I submit herewith a statement outlining briefly the action taken to date towards the implementation of the main recommendations of the National Employment Commission.
The second section deals with the employment service, and the result is given of the survey made by the commission. Then it goes on to say:
At the request of the Minister of Labour, the director of the employment service of Canada conducted such a survey and on January 12, 1937, submitted a report thereon. All offices, with the exception of a very few of the smaller ones located in the most remote centres, were covered in the survey.
In conducting the survey, as stated in the report, "the objective aimed at is that of an employment service organization which would function on a basis of lowest cost consistent with efficient performance." Furthermore, no effort was made in an attempt to determine what changes and costs would be necessary in order to achieve the modernization of a national government employment system. In other words, the purpose was to arrive at a reasonable estimate of what changes and additional costs would be involved in making the present system, functioning on its present basis, a thoroughly efficient and economically administered machine.
Then it gives the cost of making such changes, and continues:
The views of the present administration in this regard were set forth in a letter dated November 5, 1937, from the Prime Minister to the provincial premiers, as follows-
That is the letter in connection with unemployment insurance. Then it continues:
Favourable replies were subsequently received from the premiers of six provinces, viz., Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba,

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Saskatchewan and British Columbia, but the consent of the governments of the remaining three provinces, viz., New Brunswick, Quebec and Alberta, was not forthcoming.
That is the statement which came from the minister's own department indicating that it was intended to bring together the employment service of Canada and the administration of a national unemployment insurance scheme.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly.


Denton Massey: And since the national
unemployment scheme has become essentially a dead letter, as the minister himself said, this other matter has entirely gone by the board. Surely it is not unfair to make that statement, and of course I do not wish to be unfair in any way.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What I said was that
entirely apart from the approach to the provinces in connection with unemployment insurance, they were requested to indicate whether or not they would be prepared to have the dominion government take over the employment service of Canada, and that request was received unfavourably in a number of the most highly industrialized provinces.


Denton Massey: In that case it is a further manifestation of the lack of cooperation between the provinces and the dominion.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend may interpret it as he will.


Denton Massey: Those are the facts; the provinces failed to cooperate with the dominion.


Norman McLeod Rogers: They preferred to retain the service as it stands.


Denton Massey: Under pressure from the
provinces; quite so.
Recommendation No. 4 had to do with a cooperative policy in connection with the winter employment of homeless adults and a farm improvement and employment plan to carry out that policy. As the minister knows, this recommendation is not original with the present administration; it was introduced by the previous government. I readily recognize that this plan has met with some success, and I gladly give the government credit for that success. In a memorandum which was submitted by the deputy minister of labour to the minister, and passed on, placements under the farm employment plan were listed, showing that in 1936-37 there were 47,665 placed; in 1937-38 there were 42,733 placed and in 1938-39, to January 9, there were 19,179 placed. The number of
those remaining on the farms after the plan was discontinued totalled 14.550 in 1937-38. In addition there were further placements under the supplementary plan of 1936-37 in Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia and in 1937-38 and 1938-39 in British Columbia only.
But as one looks at the figures when they are broken down into their component parts, it is to be noted that the largest province in the whole dominion, both in area and in population, failed to cooperate with the federal government. This is another instance of the failure of the present administration to achieve cooperation between the various provinces. Ontario received no benefit whatever under this plan as administered by the federal government. It may be further noted that placements under this scheme are apt to be temporary * in character, since only one-third of those placed in 1937-38 remained on the farms after April 30. The minister points with pride to that plan, and I agree that the numbers are impressive; but at the same time it must be borne in mind that it is not a permanent measure. In view of the fact that thirty per cent of those placed remained on the farms, it may have some degree of permanency, but it was instituted as a palliative measure and has been carried on as such.
The fifth recommendation deals with the home improvement plan and a detailed low rental housing plan. In his speech on March 15 the minister referred to the home improvement plan and the national housing plan as great achievements of this government. Let us review this statement for a moment. The home improvement plan came into effect on November 1, 1936. Under the influence of a nation-wide, intensive advertising campaign conducted by means of pamphlets such as the one I have in my hand and other extremely effective methods of advertising, it proved successful to the extent that 62,472 loans have been made to an amount of just under $25,000,000, an average of $400 per loan. But what of the housing scheme? The recommendation for a low rental housing scheme was brought in by the commission in the middle of 1936. A detailed plan was submitted to the government in the interim report of February 10, 1937, but no action was taken until late in the session of 1938. Even then the legislation presented did not follow the recommendation of the national employment commission. The National Housing Act is divided into three parts. Parts II and III of the act have been and are still orphans of the storm. So far no loans or advances have been made under those parts of the act.
2750	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Norman McLeod Rogers: I believe the hon. member will find a number of loans have been made under part III.


Denton Massey: My information is at least three weeks old, but I understood the minister to say yesterday that there have been advances made under part II.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Advances have been made under Part III.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There were several schemes under part II.


Denton Massey: It is quite safe to say that part I only has had any success at all; for 1,532 loans were made from August 1, 1938, to January 31, 1939, to provide for 2,273 units. There has been a further increase since January 31. The total amount of the loans made to January 31 was just under $8,000,000, or at the rate of $3,500 per unit. The dominion's share of those loans was just under $2,000,000, while the total amount paid to date has been only $593,701.
I must remind the minister that he referred to the Dominion Housing Act as "moribund legislation"-he seemed to like that adjective. But in making such a statement apparently he disregarded the fact that under that "moribund" legislation no less than 3,370 loans were extended, to provide for 5,295 units.


Norman McLeod Rogers: We put life into it.


Denton Massey: That is a matter of debate. The loans totalled $21,155,655, or an average of $4,000 per unit. Of those loans, the dominion's share was $5,525,000, of which just under $5,000,000 has been paid out. Not very long ago the minister stated publicly that $50,000,000 was to be spent to stimulate the construction industry as a result of legislative action of this government. Let him be reminded that the moribund legislation, as he chose to call it, which was introduced by the former government, stimulated the construction industry even more fully than the legislation introduced by this government. Apparently that "moribund" legislation was not as dead as the minister labelled it the other day.
The net accomplishment of this government during its three and a half years in office, as a result of its legislative action in connection with housing, is that 2,273 units have been erected up to January 31. That is a start, certainly, but it is a very late start. We must realize that the national employment commission laid its recommendations before the government in 1936. What possible reason can there be for the government not taking steps-to exempt to remedy the housing situation much earlier than 1938? Why delay nearly

two years when there was a crying need for new homes in this country to the extent of over 100,000 units? Surely the government cannot be satisfied with its contribution to this vital national necessity. It has been in office three and a half years, and its contribution is approximately two to three per cent of the national requirements.
Let us note that the National Housing Act was proclaimed as a dual purpose act. It was designed not only to provide the machinery to assist in bettering housing conditions, but also to stimulate employment in the construction industry. Has the National Housing Act revivified the construction industry? Has the government in the minister's words, "taken every possible step to stimulate the construction industry?" The home improvement plan has been of some help, that is obvious. This National Housing Act received wide publicity in the press last year. It was spread all over the front pages of our -newspapers that a $50,000,000 program had been launched by the government, and yet the contribution to the construction industry to January 31 has been only $593,000, a little over one per cent of the amount set aside.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What does my hon. friend mean by that?


Denton Massey: Exactly what I say.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Would he mind repeating it?


Denton Massey: There is no other possible interpretation. I shall repeat what I said. The home improvement plan has been of some help, but the National Housing Act which received such wide publicity last year in the press, when it was said that $50,000,000 had been set aside by -this government for the purpose of stimulating the construction industry, has been effective only to the point that $593,000 has been spent by this government in the construction industry, or a little over one per cent of the amount set aside.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What expenditures have
been induced by the government subsidy?


Denton Massey: I am giving the figures
here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Denton Massey: I do not blame hon. gentlemen opposite for not wanting to accept these figures. We are back again to academic definitions.


William Ross Macdonald: That is just the government's share.


Denton Massey: It is one per cent of the
government's share; that is precisely what it is.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Mr.   MACDINALD@Brantford: The question was, how much additional money had been spent?


Denton Massey: I do not know, neither does my hon. friend or the minister. But the government said that $50,000,000 had been set aside for the construction industry. Everybody in Canada was led to believe that $50,000,000 was about to be spent by the dominion government, when actually only $593,000 was spent to January 31.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will permit me, that is not all the truth; in fact it is only a very small portion of the truth. According to the statement issued by the Minister of Finance, some $30,000,000 has been expended under the National Housing Act. This expenditure has been induced by the governmental expenditures to the amount mentioned by my hon. friend. He is telling only a small part of the story.


Denton Massey: The minister challenged
my statement that that expenditure represented only one per cent of the amount set aside, and I repeated that statement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I corrected your statement.


Denton Massey: Last year it went out all
over Canada that $50,000,000 was to be spent by the government, and only one per cent of the amount set aside has been spent. How much more stimulation would have been given to the building industry if the $50,000,000 had been spent? It might have amounted to a total of a billion dollars, but I do not know and the minister does not know.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The statement was that
$50,000,000 was being made available by way of loans.


Denton Massey: Exactly, and only one per
cent has been expended.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Whose fault is it that only one per cent has been expended?


William Ross Macdonald: I was not criticizing the hon. member; I was merely asking for information.


Denton Massey: I have given the information to the house.


Hughes Cleaver: Would the hon. member answer my question?


Denton Massey: If possible; if I can understand it.	[DOT]


Hughes Cleaver: Whose fault is it if, as you suggest, only one per cent of the money voted has been used?


Denton Massey: How much more money would have been put to use if this act had
been brought into 'being when the recommendation was made by the national employment commission, instead of waiting for two and a half years? I ask the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver), whose fault is that?


Hughes Cleaver: I shall be glad to answer the hon. member's question when he answers mine.


Denton Massey: I have answered the hon. member's question.


Hughes Cleaver: Oh, no.


Denton Massey: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.
Let me refer hon. members to page 81 of the Labour Gazette of January, 1929. It is noted here that in spite of the fact that the index of wholesale prices of building materials was 3-7 per cent lower in 1938 than in 1937, there was an increase in the value of permits issued for the first eleven months of 1938- this will be of interest to the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald)-amounting to $5,096,033.


William Ross Macdonald: The whole speech of my hon. friend is of great interest to me.


Denton Massey: I appreciate my hon. friend's comment. There was actually a recession in the value of permits issued in November, 1938, as compared with November, 1937, amounting to $237,900. I would refer hon. members to a publication of the bureau of statistics relative to the construction industry, issued on February 20, 1939. Here we find that the value of building permits issued in January, 1939, shows a decline of 5-1 per cent as compared with January, 1938, the index of value for January, 1939, standing at 36-1 as compared with 39-4 for 1938 and 36-5 for 1937.
It is further to be noted in the annual review of the employment situation in Canada during 1938, as appears at page 41, that whereas the index of employment in the construction industry stood at 74-6 in 1933 and at 97-8 in 1935, it increased only 7-6 to 105-4 in 1938. I have in my hand The February Employment Situation, 1939, issued iby the bureau of statistics. At page 10 the following is to be noted-or if hon. members would give me permission to place the table upon Hansard I should appreciate it. It is very brief.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: With the
unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Denton Massey: I thank you, Mr. Speaker and hon. gentlemen. The table is as follows, supplied by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics:
2752	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
The February employment situation-1939 Index numbers of employment by industries (average 1926=100)
1/Rel.ative
Industries	weight
Construction and maintenance	10-4
Building	 1'8
Highway	 6-4
Railway	 2-2
Feb. 1,	Jan. 1,	Feb. 1,	Feb. 1,	Feb. 1,1939	1939	1938	1937	193689-4	96-4	71-6	57-2	74-444-2	53-5	49-1	33-8	53-6172-9	192-0	106-7	83-4	109-057-2	50-3	61-5	56-5	63-4
It will be noted that between February 1, 1936. and February 1, 1939, the index of employment in the building industry dropped 9-4.
Between 1933 and 1935 construction contracts in dollars rose 64-8 per cent, and building permits 112-3 per cent; whereas between 1935 and 1938 construction contracts rose 16-9 per cent and building permits 30-8 per cent. Further, construction contracts awarded last year dropped 16-4 per cent as compared with the previous year, while building permits increased 9 per cent. The construction industry still remains the most seriously affected, for contracts awarded are 67-5 per cent down from 1929 and building permits 74-1 per cent down. Apparently, with all due deference to the enthusiasm of some hon. gentlemen opposite, including the minister himself, the government's efforts to reestablish the construction industry so far have not been dramatically successful.
There is another project, however, which was designed primarily to promote employment in the construction industry as well as to aid municipalities in the development of self-liquidating projects. I refer to the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act. This act was passed towards the end of the session of last year and came into effect on June 24, 1938. I have a copy of the report of activities under that plan to December 21, 1938. Under my hand, I have information from the finance department to the effect that loans amounting to $3,102,667 were approved in the seven months' operation of the act to March 3, 1939, or not quite ten per cent of the amount earmarked for the purpose of this act. Perhaps the minister would challenge that figure, so I repeat it. Loans amounting to over $3,000,000 were approved in the seven months' operation of this act to March 3, 1939, or not quite ten per cent of the amount earmarked for the purposes of this act. Of this amount only $660,000 has been advanced, or 2-2 per cent of the entire highly vaunted appropriation which received great publicity in the press and was supposed to revive the construction industry.
In the face of the figures I have placed upon Hansard relative to the construction

industry, the minister rose in his place in this house on January 23, 1939, and said at page 221 of Hansard:
We have given assistance to the building industry, as a result of which already over $50,000,000 has been expended under the National Housing Act and the home improvement plan. Will my hon. friends suggest that that has not been a useful means of stimulating employment in private industry? Not only that, but this employment in the building trades has been of distinct advantage in that it has been distributed right across Canada.
Even in the light of that extraordinary statement I fully admit that the home improvement plan, the National Housing Act and the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act have been, as far as they go, of some aid to the construction industry, as I have demonstrated. But, Mr. Speaker, in such a statement as that which was made by the minister in this house at the opening of the session, is there a determination to search out the truth and to state the truth? Is such a statement warranted by the figures I have placed upon Hansard? Let the government not blink the facts but face them squarely, and avoid academic definition. Let them realize that their efforts so far to stimulate the construction industry have had pathetically little effect in the way of employment, especially when it may be noted from the table I placed earlier upon Hansard that the improvement in construction contracts awarded from 1935 to 1938, as compared with 1933 to 1935, was 47-9 per cent less under the "moribund'' legislation to which my hon. friend referred, and in building permits 81-5 per cent less.
I shall not read recommendation No. 6 of the national employment commission, which is to be found at page 21 of the commission's interim report, but I earnestly urge all hon. members to read it, because it is of very great importance-*


An hon. MEMBER:: To what does it refer?


Denton Massey: I was just going to say, referring as it does to the training and reconditioning of youth.
The unemployment and agricultural assistance acts of 1937 and 1938 provided for arrangements to be entered into between the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
various provinces and the federal government for the purpose of youth training. In the session of 1937 hon. members will recall that parliament voted $1,000,000 to administer that act, and of the total appropriation voted the distribution was as follows:	Maximum
dominion contribution authorized by agreements, $945,000; dominion disbursements, $597,000, or a difference of some $350,000 between the contribution authorized and the actual disbursements. It is, then, to be noted that only 58 per cent of the expenditure authorized was actually spent.
Then in the session of 1938 we voted $1,750,000 in the special supplementary estimates for use under the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act of 1938, of which $290,000 was a revote. The maximum dominion contributions authorized by agreements with the provinces under this act were as follows:
Prince Edward Island	$	20,000
Nova Scotia	 90,000
New Brunswick	 75,000
Quebec	 325,000
Ontario	 350,000
Manitoba	 150,000
Saskatchewan	 120,000
Alberta	 120,000
British Columbia	 155,000
Total	$1,405,000
Thus in the three and a half years in which the present administration has been in power we have authorized and spent $2,750,000 for the purpose of the reestablishment of Canadian youth. But, Mr. Speaker, let not the house be misled for a single moment into thinking that that $2,750,000 has been spent in the last two years for the training and reestablishment of Canada's youth. I was virtually staggered the other day to find that of the amount of $1,405,000, authorized by agreement in 1938, only $351,000 has been paid out to date, or 24 per cent, and it is estimated that the total amount would be somewhere between $900,000 and $1,000,000 at the end of this fiscal year. Am I correct in that statement?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will check on it.


Denton Massey: It is open to correction.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be dealing with it in connection with my next bill.


Denton Massey: Thus the total contributions of this government since it came into office for the reestablishment of youth have been under $1,600,000.
Early in March, 1936, I made my maiden speech in parliament on a resolution which I introduced asking that consideration be given to the setting up of a national youth reestablishment commission. To my unbounded
delight that resolution passed this house unanimously. I listened to the minister as he spoke in reply to my speech, and took courage, as did the youth of Canada, when he said as reported on page 919 of Hansard of 1936:
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would repeat that the government is fully in sympathy with the reestablishment of the youth of this country and, like any government conscious of its responsibility in relation to unemployment at this time, we will take every possible step to see to it that young men and women are given opportunities within which they may realize their desire for remunerative employment. I do not believe the youth of this dominion expect ready-made jobs, nor do I believe that the solution for unemployed youth lies in public employment. If I did believe that I should have some misgivings for the future of Canada. It is our duty to create conditions within which our Canadian youth may once more, as in other years, find their own opportunities and make the most of them.
The 1936 session of parliament passed into history. There was no legislative action to further the interests of youth, and these high-sounding and encouraging phrases of the minister were "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Shortly after the opening of the second session, the minister stated on February 24, 1937, as reported at page 1208 of Hansard:
In considering our obligations, particularly at this time, I do not believe we can ignore the primary obligation we have towards those younger people who are now unemployed. As members of the house will be aware, the speech from the throne contained an explicit reference to measures which would be undertaken for the reestablishment of unemployed young people. I feel quite certain that at this time members of this house and the country generally would feel that this type of assistance should have priority over any far-reaching change in the existing establishment of studentships and fellowships by the national research council.
I claim that such statements as those I have just read, with all due deference to the minister who made them, are nothing more than vapourings and pious platitudes, high-sounding sentiments which subsequent experience has taught us have little or no practical value.
Nothing having been done for a full year and a half to indicate that the government was sensible in any way, great or small, to the plight of our youth, we were asked late in the session of 1937 to vote one-fifth of one per cent of our governmental income to be devoted to the reestablishment of youth. One-fifth of one per cent of our governmental income 1


Paul Joseph James Martin: How much had previously been voted for that purpose?
2754	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Denton Massey: Nothing at all. Does that answer my hon. friend?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Definitely.


Denton Massey: I thought he might under. stand that, at least.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have that on record.


Denton Massey: Then we have, I feel, achieved a triumph.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But I am not able to understand platitudes.


Denton Massey: After nothing had been done for a year and a half, one-fifth of one per cent was set aside for the reestablishment of youth. Then, as I noted a minute ago, only sixty per cent of this feeble grant was put to use. Last year, under the special supplementary estimates, we voted one-third of one per cent of our governmental income, about one-sixth of which was a revote from the year previous, and of this vote we have spent to date only about one million dollars. Here is the great contribution which the present administration has made to the youth of Canada. Listen again to the minister's words, Mr. Speaker:
We will take every possible step to see to it that young men and women are given opportunities within which they may realize their desire for remunerative employment.
In considering our obligations, particularly at the present time, I do not believe we can ignore the primary obligation we have towards those younger people who are now unemployed.
High-sounding phrases! One-fifth of one per cent of our governmental income! Those are the minister's own words; then, these paltry votes; that is the way in which the government has recognized its obligations 

about SI,750,000 in three and a half years for youth reestablishment. What great speeches! What little action!
How is this money, such as it is, being spent? I hesitate not at all to say, to good advantage as far as it goes. How far has it gone? A permanent officer has been attached to the Department of Labour, Mr. R. F. Thompson, a man whose capabilities, whose integrity, whose honesty and desire to accomplish the fullest and best that can be accomplished cannot be questioned. I have had the privilege of knowing Mr. Thompson for many years and of having been associated with him for several of those years. The minister could not have made a better choice, and I heartily congratulate him. But I hold in my hand a pamphlet issued towards the end of last year by the Department of Labour. It bears the most imposing of titles, "Training Canada's young unemployed". I believe I referred to it a month ago in my remarks

in the first instalment of this speech. The whole pamphlet is like a description by a real estate agent of a piece of property. As one reads through the twenty-five pages of this report, omitting page 24, he would feel that here was a great nation-wide constructive plan which would restore confidence in the minds of Canadian youth who would be trained, ready and eager to step into positions which were opening a new world for them.
With all possible regard for Mr. Thompson and for those splendid citizens who have been responsible for this plan, it is most depressing to realize how condemnatory of the government is this pamphlet when one examines the table on page 24. Before we reach page 24, however, we shall probably have read the foreword, and we hear about projects here and projects there with every province cooperating, welfare organizations, service groups, trades and labour councils also assisting in the progress of the movement. So says the minister on page 3. Yes: "Training Canada's young unemployed"! Then look at the table at page 24. We find there that 32,301 men received an average of 13 days' training per man, and 23,156 women received an average of Si days' training per woman. "Training Canada's young unemployed"! But the minister has proudly pointed to this achievement. Subsequent to their training 2,064 men and 1,218 women found employment of some sort, which is another way of saying that as a result of training Canada's young unemployed, 6-4 per cent of the men and 5-3 per cent of the women found employment. There is a note at the bottom of the chart which states that "14,649 young people finished courses designed to train for employment and of these 3,282 or 22-4 per cent found work." If that figure is correct it would appear that, of the 55,457 men and women who were given training, 40,808 failed to finish even those courses.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is not quite correct.


Denton Massey: Then the minister had
better revise his pamphlet. It is right there.
Mr. ROGERS r If my hon. friend would read through the pamphlet-


Denton Massey: I have read it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -he would find a statement there to this effect, that certain of the courses were not designed primarily to lead to employment.


Denton Massey: That is obvious.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In some provinces there
were large registrations under physical training. There were also some in forestry where

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
work was given, and physical reconditioning, but it was not the expectation that all those in forestry camps would at once receive employment,


Denton Massey: There should be a note
to that effect.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend could deduce that if he desired to do so.


Denton Massey: I do not think the minister is entitled to impute motives to me. I have endeavoured to be fair, and have used no figure except what has come from the minister's own department and from the bureau of statistics. The minister says I could have been fair if I had wished to be. I do not think that that remark, coming from a minister of the crown, is quite proper.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I said my hon. friend could deduce it if he wished to do so.


Denton Massey: I did.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is no imputation
there.


Denton Massey: Would the minister care
to have me request to have the chart placed in full on Hansard, just as it is?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The speech will cost a
lot of money as it is.


Denton Massey: It certainly will; I fully
agree.


Mr. STEWART:: It is worth it.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a matter of opinion.


Denton Massey: If there has been any
misunderstanding on my part, and I do not think there is, I am exceedingly sorry that the chart belies itself.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have made an explanation.


Denton Massey: The fact remains that
the minister does not dispute the previous figures I used, indicating that 32,301 men and 23.156 women received certain training, which worked out at 13 days training per man and 8| days training per woman. These figures, of course, are for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1938. This house has been led to believe that the work has since been extended, but if we consider the figures I have just placed on Hansard we find that whereas $580,000 was spent in 1937, so far this year we have spent between $900,000 and $1,000,000 even though the agreements with the provinces were authorized up to $1,405,000. It would appear that on the basis of the record of 1937-38, essentially the same number of young people will find
employment in 1938-39, perhaps a slightly increased number, and so we will say eight hundred more, which raises the figure to four thousand. Now, in the face of the desperate need of Canadian youth, the total contribution which this government has made during the three and a half years it has been in office is the expenditure of an amount of money under $2,000,000 to place 7,200 young persons in jobs. That is the total contribution this government has made to the youth of Canada.
I sat in the railway committee room last January and listened to the speeches of those who came from all parts of Canada and who are part of Mr. Thompson's organization, and I say to the minister on the floor of this house that I realized that night, as I realize to-day, the splendid work that is being done by the noble men and women who are acting as teachers in these courses. But I left that night with the awful feeling that little was being done in relation to the size of the whole problem and that the effect to date, good as it may have been, was hopelessly inadequate to meet the situation of youth training and youth placement taken as a whole. Surely the minister cannot be insensible to the condition of unemployment among our young people, with its disastrous and debilitating results, and be deaf to the challenge to this government to deal with the ghastly problems which Canadian young people have to face through no fault of their own.
The government announced in the speech from the throne this session that measures would be introduced to the end of reestablishing youth, with the means of giving them an opportunity which they so justly deserve. Well, what great revitalizing measure has been introduced? What great revitalizing measure is in prospect? A resolution appeared on the order paper and a 'bill has 'been introduced, having reached the stage of second reading, to provide for a long range program. We are to spend $4,500,000 for three years or $1,500,000 a year. As I have already pointed out in this chamber, and I should like to have it noted again, this vote is even less than the single vote for youth which was put through last session and which has proved to be so hopelessly inadequate to meet the problem in anything like a commensurate way. Here is a manifestation of a lack of willingness on the part of the government to face squarely the problems of Canadian youth.
The problem of the single unemployed alone presents one of the gravest phases of this whole complex question of youth unemployment.
2756	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Speaking in this house on March 2, 1937, as reported at page 1427 of Hansard, the minister stated:
I would not suggest for one moment to this house that the problem of unemployment and relief, either in its human or its financial aspect, can he liquidated within a few months. I know something, as I think all members of this house do, of what might he termed the residual problems of the economic shock through which this country has been passing since 1930. There are great and grave problems of readjustment. There is not merely the restoration of morale among the single unemployed-that in itself is a most serious and important matter- hut there is also the providing of the means by which these young men who have perforce lived a life of idleness in recent years can gradually be brought back into the economic life of this country in a manner to enable them to recover their independence and their self-respect. That is our objective; that is our determined road.
These are high-sounding, laudable phrases; but what is the result? What has been done?


Thomas Langton Church: Nothing.


Denton Massey: The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) says, in no uncertain terms, "Nothing." Let me refer hon. members to a most interesting and enlightening pamphlet issued by the Canadian welfare council in Ottawa, entitled "The problem of the non-resident and migrant." I quote from page 8:
As we look back upon the decades of this century in Canada's story, in the light of our experience of these immediate years, we can see the situation in a three-pronged challenge to our progress.
1.	The problem of assuring gainful occupation on a self-supporting basis for a large supply of necessarily mobile and necessarily young labour;
2.	The problem of assuring reasonable social care for these men whose very modes of life have defeated marriage and the establishment of homes; and
3.	The problem of tying down both employment and social care facilities on a basis of residence.
And, later on page 17:
Surely we cannot continue longer to suffer, in indifference, this shifting movement, back and forth across the land, and this concentration, in the centres of congestion, of hundreds of men, many of them young, who now pass the greater time of each year eating the bread of idleness and bitterness, and with no more hope than "two meals and a bed" and "move on" to-day, to-morrow, and for the duration of life in Canada. That way lies resentment, and fierce revolt: for many, apathy and despair: for others, something close to mere rotting, and for all, and for Canada the loss of vigour and of manhood, much of it in the prime of life.
No one can deny that the situation is as here described. Any hon. member of this house who has read this pamphlet issued by the Canadian welfare council knows that it is true, knows that the work was carefully

carried out by those who had no political axe to grind. But what recognition has the situation received? The minister will no doubt refer to the work done on the rights of way of the two railways, which was merely temporary work affording casual employment. It was only a palliative measure. He will also refer, no doubt, to the farm placement scheme, which has been successful as far as it has gone, but which has proven to provide only 33^ per cent permanent work. I have given credit to the government for their efforts as far as they have gone, but surely hon. members must realize that such schemes as have been put forward are only stop-gap proposals, holding out no hope of a remedy. The situation in Vancouver last May and the situation existing in Toronto at the present time indicate that no permanent plan has been evolved. Single transients to the number of thousands upon thousands beg here and there in an effort to keep body and soul together, and thousands have died as a result of exposure, illness, actual starvation or lack of care.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Where does my hon. friend get that figure?


Denton Massey: I have had experience dealing with young men.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Where is the evidence that thousands have died?


Denton Massey: I say thousands have died Does the minister say thousands have not died?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Absolutely.


Denton Massey: Does the minister say everything has been done that can be done for these transients?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend is changing his question. I ask for his authority for the statement that thousands have died from starvation, exposure and lack of care.


Denton Massey: I have not lived the last three and a half years alone in the back woods. It so happens that I have contact each week with a good many thousand young men. In the last ten years, I have seen thousands of young men personally.


Ernest Lapointe: Who died?


Denton Massey: I have scores and hundreds of letters.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Answer the question.


Denton Massey: Does the minister dispute my figures?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Denton Massey: I started these remarks by saying that there are no actual figures available. But if the minister has travelled this country at all, if he knows conditions at all, he knows that that statement is true; and I stand by it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: How many thousands?


Denton Massey: I do not know, neither does the minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: Then you do not know?


Denton Massey: Do you want me to resort to academic definitions? I have given facts as they appear in the records of the bureau of statistics.


Ernest Lapointe: Not in regard to thousands of deaths.


Denton Massey: I can understand why, after all the indisputable facts I have given, if I generalise on one figure the minister should leap to his feet as if actuated by a spring It is the first opportunity he has had to challenge a figure I have given, and he has taken full advantage of it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I certainly do challenge the figure, and I remind the hon. member that during the winter months there is not a province or municipality in which provision is not made for unemployed men.


Denton Massey: For what time?


Norman McLeod Rogers: From October until April.


Denton Massey: For what class of men?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Single unemployed men.


Denton Massey: Has the minister visited any of these hostels?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly I have.


Denton Massey: Is the minister satisfied with them?


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member should make his speech, not put questions to the minister.


Denton Massey: I apologize for crossquestioning the minister across the floor.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I assure my hon. friend that I shall be happy to submit to crossexamination when the bill is before the committee, but I think on reflection he will wish to withdraw his statement.


Denton Massey: I do not wish to withdraw it, because I feel that my own information in this matter is as good as the minister's. I say there are thousands, the minister says there are not; let it rest with the country.


Thomas Langton Church: Read what the health
officers say.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Does the hon. member say he knows of men dying as a result of exposure?


Denton Massey: Yes, or accident.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I ask my hon. friend to submit his cases to me.


Denton Massey: I am not going to disclose confidences of that sort.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Denton Massey: There are some hon. members who do not-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. If the hon. member for Greenwood is not ready to submit his particulars, I do not think he should make the statements. If he uses them in his speech, he ought to be able to disclose them to the house.


Denton Massey: If the minister denies my statement, he ought to be able to produce figures himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. It is incumbent upon an hon. member who makes a statement of alleged facts, if they are challenged, to give his proof, if he has certain information which he proposes to use in debate.


Denton Massey: Mr. Speaker, I am stating what I feel to be true, and what the minister cannot prove is not true. I have no categorical facts before me to prove that my statement is true.


Ernest Lapointe: He who asserts should be able to prove his assertion.


Denton Massey: I think the minister should let it rest at that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not going to let it rest there. If my hon. friend wished to ascertain the truth of his conjecture-because it is nothing more-he could have communicated either with officials of the Department of Labour here or with officials in the various provinces; because as far as there have been cases of death through exposure and lack of care-for that is what he said-they would be known to those who are charged with relief administration in the various provinces. He has absolutely no basis for the statement he has made.


Denton Massey: Under the academic definition of the minister.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend is far more academic than I can ever hope to be.
2758	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Denton Massey: That is possibly a compliment in some respects, but I do not know if it is so intended.


Mr. POULIOT:: He is academic but not an academician.


Denton Massey: I think the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is making a fine distinction. I have made a statement which to the best of my knowledge is correct.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What knowledge?


Denton Massey: I wonder if the minister is right in asking that question. I ask the minister, on what knowledge does he deny it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member says that thousands have died because of the circumstances mentioned. He should either give some-foundation for this statement, or withdraw it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Where is the point of order? Where is your rule?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I ask the hon. member either to substantiate his statement, or be, as he generally is, gentleman enough to withdraw it.


Denton Massey: We have listened to the point of order, and you have not moved, Mr. Speaker, so I presume you do not regard it as such. Therefore I shall continue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have risen to a point of order. I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Edward Foster: I am not prepared offhand to refer to a rule of the house, but I have always heard it stated in courts of justice and debating societies that when one addressing the house bases his statement on certain authorities, he should disclose them to the court or to those whom he is addressing.


Denton Massey: I would not for a moment question the fact that your honour has heard that statement. I might suggest that there is no foundation given for the challenge of my statement. But I accept your ruling. The minister says I am wrong, I say I am not; neither of us can prove his statement, therefore I suggest we let it rest at that.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend permit me to ask him whether the other statements in his speech are as accurate as this one?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Denton Massey: I have the highest regard and respect for my right hon. friend, and 
would not insinuate for a moment that he has not been listening or has been out of the house a good part of the afternoon-


Ernest Lapointe: No, I have been here consistently.


Denton Massey: I am sorry; I thought the right hon. gentleman had been out of his seat. But had he been listening he would have heard me say that for every figure I have quoted I have the authority of the bureau of statistics.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Then why does the hon. member omit to give his authority in the present case?


Denton Massey: Because there is no " authority," as the minister well knows.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Denton Massey: I wonder if that demonstration sounds very well when we are dealing with this particular matter-thousands of the youth of this country who are out of work, and transients; and when the minister says there are not thousands, then hon. members who support the minister thump their desks.
I ask hon. members who applauded, are they satisfied with the treatment given to the transient unemployed?


Malcolm McLean: That is not the point.


Denton Massey: Are they satisfied with the treatment given? Where is the applause?


Mr. McCANN:: It is the undertakers' results my friend should give.


Denton Massey: I am sure my hon. friend knows more about undertakers than any other hon. member of the house. Now may I return to the point at which I left off?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, go ahead.


Denton Massey: I make this statement: Our young Canadian manhood has been degraded as a result of the lack of governmental appreciation of their plight. I shall let the question of what the government has done to reestablish youth rest on what I have said so far. I shall discuss this matter more fully . on a later occasion.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a threat.


Denton Massey: There is only one conclusion to be drawn from such figures as I have given; that is, how pathetically small is the proportion of our young people who have benefited (by any action of this government, compared with the total number of our shamefully neglected youth.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
The national employment commission is terminated now, ended abruptly, and its main recommendations have been treated as I have said. Why they have been so treated is for the government to answer. Many had based high hopes on the report of the national employment commission. It was the keystone in the arch built by the Prime Minister in his election campaign of 1935. It is gone now; its great efforts have been put to use by the government to alleviate rather than liquidate unemployment, while the Prime Minister and his government remain to pay lip service to the worthy work done by Mr. Purvis and those associated with him.
Let me refer again to a speech of the Minister of Labour on January 23, 1939, as reported at page 220 of- Hansard:
In the first opportunity I had to speak in this house I stated my own firm conviction that regardless of what might have to be done in the way of expanding public employment it was the first duty of government in a democratic state to take measures to expand private employment. And we have done just that.
How can the minister possibly claim that private employment has been expanded as a result of any action taken by this government, in the light of the figures I have presented this afternoon? In 1938 employment was retarded, not accelerated. The figures are upon Hansard; I placed them there this afternoon, and they cannot be denied. I agree with the statement of the minister that the first duty of government in a democratic state is to take measures to assist in the expansion of private employment. In the light of such facts as I have presented, however, it is amazing to hear a minister of the crown lay claim to achievements in this regard when such claims are without foundation or categorical proof. Again on January 23, at page 225 of Hansard, the minister stated:
Apart entirely from what has been indicated here, I should like once more to stress the importance of this government or any government receiving the broadest kind of cooperation from employers generally throughout this country in doing what they reasonably can do, even at some risk, to increase their working staffs during this coming year. I have been told sometimes of employers who have done this and who have received a large measure of satisfaction from knowing that in this way they were making their own contribution to the problem. Because-let us make no mistake about it-if private employment is not able to take up the slack; if private industry acting with governments, and having a knowledge that governments are doing their part, does not itself do its part toward that objective, there will be thrown ultimately upon democratic government such a pressure of opinion in favour of public employment that government itself will be asked to undertake burdens which it is not equipped to bear.
I think we should remember that. During the course of the same speech the minister said:
I should like to assure this house that this government from the beginning, although at times its progress may have seemed slow and at times perhaps it may have been open to the charge that we were taking too much care before we proceeded in a given direction, at all events lias proceeded resolutely upon lines which we felt would lead us ultimately towards a sound solution. There is no defeatism here; there is no discouragement; and although there are times, I confess, when one encounters reverses, let us remember that this battle of unemployment is not fought on one front alone; it is fought on a long battlefront, and sometimes we may have to retreat on one sector, sometimes we may have to consolidate our position along the whole line; there is not always an advance. But I believe that, given the kind of cooperation, the kind of enterprise and initiative that exists in this country, at least potentially, it is not beyond the powers of government, and citizenship, to make steady progress towards the solution of this problem of unemployment.
I wonder if in those statements the minister is insinuating that industry is not cooperating with the government, and is still unwilling to cooperate. When the minister complains about the lack of cooperation he is forgetting his ability to get it if he so desires; for he has stated that the government has power to get cooperation if it wishes it. Let me refer your honour to the minister's own words spoken on April 20, 1936, as reported at page 1983 of Hansard:
The power is here if we desire to use it, to enter into agreements with industrial corporations for the purpose of expanding employment.
If there is lack of cooperation, why has not use been made of the ability to gain that cooperation? I think I can answer the question-because the internal structure of Canada has been so neglected by this government, and because industry can have no confidence in a government which is constantly tinkering with tariffs.
In his speech of March 18 the minister was still unhappy about the lack of cooperation between the government and industry. At page 1930 he stated:
-if only we had more faith in the recuperative powers of Canada, if only leaders of industry had more faith in the recuperative powers of Canada, it would be possible, I say .	.	.
for us to make a substantial reduction in the number of unemployed this year.
How can the minister expect those whom he calls the leaders of industry to dice with deficits and hazard expense when the policy of this government is one which shows shocking disregard for Canadian industry, a policy of constant tariff tinkering, so that the manufacturer does not know from one day to the

2760	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
next where he is? The trade treaty of 1935 damaged many industries, as the figures show. The trade treaty of 1938 followed, concerning the effect of which many of us in this house and many more outside are dubious and concerned. Now we have the budget only a week away, with the excise tax hanging by a thread. How can the minister possibly expect industry to take a chance on expansion and expense when it does not know what the future holds in the way of government manipulation? Any day industry may find itself placed in a position of impossible competition with a countiy geared to mass production for 130,000,000 people. If this government, instead of attempting to reduce prices of retail merchandise without regard to the producer and at the expense of the Canadian industrial employee, would rather direct its efforts, by forward-looking, constructive internal policies, towards the increase of income itself, then I think the minister's pious hope for the cooperation of leaders of industry might have some justification.
For the benefit of the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) I repeat that a prosperous Canadian agriculture is tantamount to a prosperous Canada. Likewise I believe that a prosperous urban community is tantamount to a prosperous agriculture. The two are irreducibly linked together, and the sacrifice of Canadian industry in an attempt to reduce commodity prices creates unemployment which in turn creates depressed urban areas and produces still more agricultural distress.
What we need in Canada to-day is a forward-looking policy of reconstruction and development, meantime taking care of those who are the unfortunate victims of unemployment and agricultural distress, but who nevertheless would know that by constructive planning a new Canada was in the process of development under a constructive policy, short and long range, of which there is absolutely no sign at the present time.
I am confident that every member of this house, regardless of whether he sits to your right or to your left, Mr. Speaker, must realize that the greatest failure of the present administration in regard to the internal conditions of Canada goes to the veiy foundation of our economic and political structure; that is, in connection with the tragedy of the lack of cooperation existing to-day between the dominion and the provincial governments. Oh, the ballyhoo before the last election!
At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Denton Massey: Mr. Speaker, when the
house took recess at six o'clock, I had all but concluded that portion of my remarks dealing primarily with what the government had done, such as it was, about the problem of unemployment. Before I take my seat I wish to conclude that portion of my remarks and then present to the minister and to the house such constructive suggestions as I have to make for dealing with this great national problem.
Before six o'clock I had just commenced to refer to the situation existing between the dominion government and the governments of the nine provinces. I am confident, sir, that there is not an hon. member, regardless of whether he sits on your right or on your left, but must realize that the greatest failure of the present administration in regard to their treatment of internal conditions in Canada, goes to the veiy foundation of our economic and political structure. It is a failure which has had its manifestation in the tragic lack of cooperation which prevails today between the dominion and. the provincial governments. We all recall the campaign of 1935 when we heard the great cry of unity from the throat of every Liberal speaker. We all recall how we were told that if we would only vote Liberal and elect a Liberal administration to Ottawa, Canada would at once become a great and happy family.


Mr. HANSON:: We were told the same thing in 1930.


Denton Massey: Skeena is in again. We were told that there were eight Liberal premiers out of the nine, and that a Liberal prime minister in Ottawa would unite the happy flock and all would be well. I well recall that stirring night in the city of Toronto when there were gathered together in the Maple Leaf Gardens the eight Liberal premiers and the would-be prime minister. That was a most delightful and touching love-feast. Each one spoke in turn and essentially pledged his solemn allegiance, not only to the party of his choice or perhaps of his birth, but to his leader who was about to become the Prime Minister of Canada. It was a late broadcast lasting far into the night, and the only conclusion that one could arrive at after listening to it was that there was this great embryonic, united family. It did have its appeal, The people of Canada listened to that broadcast. They thought the words that were spoken carried the truth. But when cooperation became a vital necessity when

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
cooperation was called for subsequent to the election, cooperation broke down. One of the most outstanding tragedies resulting from that lack of cooperation is to be found in the fate of unemployment insurance.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) introduced a resolution into this house not so long ago, and introduced it most ably. His arguments were strong and his points fair and well taken. We all gathered from his words that night that he was just as earnest in his desire to see unemployment insurance in Canada as any other member of this house. Then we waited to hear what the government's reply would be. The government's reply was the saddest of all possible commentaries, namely, that the provinces would not cooperate fully, that one province in particular had failed to cooperate at all. As a result of this failure in cooperation, this much heralded cooperation which was to be achieved if we elected a Liberal administration to Ottawa, unemployment insurance became essentially a dead letter. I take my mind back to March 24, 1936, and I find these words of the Minister of Labour reported on page 1394 of Hansard:
I feel sure that when we sit down with representatives of the provinces and seek to work out a satisfactory program of relief work we shall have no difficulty.
I wonder if the minister would make that statement to-day? I wonder if that statement occurred to him when not so long ago in Port Arthur, during the course of a speech, he publicly accused the premier of one of the provinces of conducting a "conspiracy," and then included with the one he first mentioned, the name of another; yet here were his words in 1936:
I feel sure that when we sit down with representatives of the provinces and seek to work out a satisfactory program of relief work we shall have no difficulty.
There is not one of us who sits on this side of this house who is at all concerned with a family quarrel within the ranks of the Liberal party. If the members of the Liberal party wish to quarrel among themselves, that is their business. However, when that quarrel is such as to affect efficiency between the federal and provincial administrations, it then ceases to be the business of the Liberal party and becomes the business of the people of Canada. I wonder if we were to ask the question, "who pays the piper?" what would be the answer. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. The one who has paid the piper, the one who has paid for the result of this lack of cooperation which exists between the 71492-1741
federal and provincial governments is the unemployed wage-earner, the farmer and the youth of Canada.
To sum up this portion of my remarks dealing with what the government has done, let me refer hon. members to a document to which I made reference in the first instalment of this speech which I made on March 15. This is entitled "What did parliament do?" In response to a question which was placed on the order paper we were told that this extraordinary document was a release of the Department of Labour which had been distributed to the members of the House of Commons at the cost of the Canadian taxpayer.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Has my hon. friend the
cost there?


Denton Massey: I have not the cost in front of me. I am sorry I mislaid it. I know it is very small, but so is the document. On the face of this document is the question, "What did parliament do?" Then we read:
This is a question which sometimes confronts a member of parliament on his return to his constituency after a session.
That is certainly a question which will confront every Liberal member on his return to his constituency. It then goes on to say:
It is a difficult question to answer-
I agree with that. It continues:
-particularly when accomplishments of the session have been of a very varied or somewhat complicated nature. A partial answer to the question, in so far as the past session is concerned, is contained in these pages. The memorandum is confined to parliamentary action directed definitely toward rehabilitation. It does not, nor is it intended to, cover the complete list of accomplishments last session.
Then follow some fourteen pages under various headings, setting out in the minister's words what parliament did in 1938. I was interested to see the results of what parliament did, to look into the pamphlet, facing it in retrospect; and so I made four tables which I shall read. In the first place the document refers to the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, the grant being
830.000.	000. The amount appropriated or used up to January 31, 1939, was 8659,796. Under the National Housing Act, part I, 820,000,000 was set aside, and the advances have been 8593,701. Under part II of the housing act, as of January 31, of the $30,000,000 which had been set aside, none had been appropriated or used at that time, although I understand that there has been some since. Under part III of the housing act nothing had been appropriated and no amount was used. Of the
880.000.	000 which was so widely heralded in
2762	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
the press of Canada as having been set aside to stimulate housing and construction as of January 31, 1939, SI,253,497 had.been put into use.


Norman McLeod Rogers: This question arose before six o'clock.


Denton Massey: I know it did.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But the way in which it is being presented by my hon. friend is calculated to deceive rather than to enlighten the house.


Denton Massey: Oh, no.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Absolutely. The amounts
set out in the housing act referred to loans that would be made under inducements of government subsidies, and it was never stated that the amounts referred to by my hon. friend would be spent. When the hon. gentleman is dealing with totals he ought to deal with the totals loaned. In other words, if he is speaking of housing he should refer to the fact that $50,000,000 has been loaned for housing purposes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not out of these figures.


Denton Massey: Let us face the facts.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I want the facts, but my
hon. friend is not giving them.


Denton Massey: The sum of $30,000,000 was set aside under the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, for loans under that act.


Norman McLeod Rogers: By way of loan.


Denton Massey: Yes, and by way of loan
so far there have been advances of $659,796.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend is not correct in that. Give the total loans.


Denton Massey: The total loans are


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is under the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act alone. Give it under the housing act.


Denton Massey: Unfortunately I believe I
have sent the document to Hansard.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is $20,000,000 under
the housing act.


Denton Massey: No. I have the statement here. It comes from the Department of Finance and shows that loans approved to March 3, 1939, amount to $3,102,667.53. The amount advanced to March 3, 1939, was $659,796.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is under the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act. Now fake the housing act.


Denton Massey: Shall I take the moribund
legislation?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was moribund until we
put life into it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is not much life
in it yet.
Mr.. MASSEY: If the minister is successful in putting life into anything he would have reason to want to talk about it. Under the National Housing Act, part I, the number of loans approved as of February, 1939, was 1,534. The number of family housing units provided was 2,273; amount of loans approved, $7,931,575; the dominion's share of approval loans, $1,982,894; the dominion's share of approval loans paid to date being $593,701.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is for one year.


Denton Massey: No.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, yes.


Denton Massey: The minister is now minimizing his own statement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member referred to the figure as $20,000,000 under the National Housing Act.


Denton Massey: Quite.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the last three years.


Denton Massey: No, no; I am talking about the appropriation. Let me read to the minister what is set out here:
Many Canadian municipalities should benefit as a result of last session. Breaking new ground parliament enacted a measure called The Municipal Improvements Assistance Act. It is a piece of legislation which should go far to meet the call for assistance from those municipalities hard hit by depression conditions. . . .
The total amount of loans provided by this legislation is $30,000,000 to be advanced to municipalities at a rate of 2 per cent per annum payable semi-annually.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.


Denton Massey: Of course it is correct; so is my statement correct.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, no.


Denton Massey: Perfectly correct. I have it here.
The amount of youth training grants was $1,460,000, of which $351,000 had been paid out to the provinces under agreement about a month ago, and $600,000 has still to be paid. In other words, 62 per cent of the appropriation is to be spent. Under the farm employment plan $1,870,000 was the grant, of which $596,000, or 32 per cent, has been put into

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
use. Of the $83,330,000 there has been put into actual use the sum of $2,200,497, or 2-6 per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What are the total loans?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That has nothing to do with it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the whole point.


Denton Massey: I have here a further statement from the Department of Transport dealing with the other items which are listed in this article or pamphlet or brochure, or whatever you choose to call it.
Main estimates: # Airways and airports, construction and improvements	
[DOT] [DOT] ;	
Assistance to municipal airports	Amount authorized $1,722,400 800,000	Expenditure during fiscal year 1938-39, to February 28, 1939 $1,722,400 578,968Supplementary estimates: _ Airways and airports, construction and improvements	
Assistance to municipal airports	800,000 500,000	246.587 313,280Main estimates: Canal service: canals, operations and maintenance	
Canals, improvements	2,177,450 347,200	1,912,707 93,294Supplementary estimates: Canals, improvements	1,003,050	118,791Main estimates and supplementary estimates: Construction under national harbours board..	3,145,000	1,902,760Total	
$10,495,100	$6,888,787


Mr. HOWE:: May I interrupt my hon. friend? What does he mean by "spent"?


Denton Massey: The expenditure to February 28, 1939. That is the heading.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does the hon. member mean paid?


Denton Massey: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend can find any of that money unexpended at the end of April he is a better man than I am.


Denton Massey: The minister is adding to my statement, because I was going to call this " the patronage group." The total appropriation was $10,495,100, but at February 28, $6,888,789, or 66 per cent, had been expended. I say that this is the patronage group, in contrast with the other legislation providing for youth, farm employment, and to stimulate the construction industry, in which there was little or no patronage whatever.
Let us take the third group under " What did parliament do?" Take first the item, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, [DOT] grant $3,500,000; amount expended as at March 31, $3,500,000; grants in aid, $17,500,000; amount appropriated or used-the nearest figure I could get was the full amount. I assume that the minister will agree that is correct.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was completely expended, yes.
table is as
Expended

If we examine these appropriations listecj under " What did parliament do?" we find that most of them in this list are valuable for the purpose of attracting votes. It is not surprising then that one hundred per cent has been spent!
Let us take the total of it all. Under "What did parliament do?" there are listed appropriations amounting to $120,150,900. Of this amount $36,208,472.54, or only 30 per cent, was actually spent.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, we find in this extraordinary document which was to inform us what parliament did, that we have actually put into use during the fiscal year which followed, only 30 per cent of the appropriation.


Denton Massey: The complete
follows:
Appropriation
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act	$ 3,500,000
Grants in aid	 17,500,000
Development and conservation-
Mines	 1,310,000
Highways and parks. .	1,750,000
Banff-Jasper highway. 300,000 Golden-Revelstoke
highway	 400,000
Kingsgate to Kootenay
park	 200,000
National park		400,000
Canada's historic sites..	450,000
Forest conservation.. ..	200,000
Fur conservation	 50,000
Geological survey	 50,000

2764	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
If we face the facts of the record of this government, face them fearlessly, and judge the government on the -basis of those facts, we are forced to the conclusion that hon. gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches either do not comprehend the gravity of the unemployment situation, or do not know how to combat it, or both. The phrase " do-nothing government " may not be palatable to hon. gentlemen opposite, but in the light of results obtained so far, as I have endeavoured this afternoon and evening to outline them to this house, the phrase seems to be an extraordinarily accurate description of the present administration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us leave controversy. Let us turn our attention to what the government can do, or if you will, might have done. I should like to present to the house several suggestions in connection with this problem. I have regard for the suggestion which has been made from time to time Iby hon. gentlemen opposite that we who criticize the administration do not always offer anything in return. I should like to say, however, that in offering these suggestions to the government I realize full well it is probably taking the time of the house uselessly, on account of the fact that the present government has already announced its program for the balance of this session, and in that program, as I have already drawn to the attention of hon. members, there is no constructive measure relative to decreasing unemployment, other than through such measures as we have already noted as palliative measures.
However, as I have said, I am a confirmed optimist; I am prepared to take at this point more time of the house to offer these suggestions to the minister, and I do so in all sincerity. I am not in a position to make a declaration of policy for my party, but I am going to point out a few ideas which I do not claim by any means as altogether my own, but which I present personally. There are ways and means for productive governmental effort towards the solution of this problem, and the ways I shall mention are perhaps the most obvious ones. They will not be presented with any degree of completeness, and I put them forward only to indicate a few of the methods which could ibe applied by the minister and those who sit about him.
The first constructive suggestion I throw out for the consideration of the government is the development and opening up of the northwest territories and the northernmost parts of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and also northwestern Ontario and northeastern Quebec. Northwestern Ontario and northeastern Quebec are likely to

be just as rich in mineral deposits as areas already under development, but they are at present completely inaccessible except by aeroplane. We who live in Quebec and Ontario realize what a vitally important part the mining industries of our provinces have played in our provincial development, and it is not without significance that mineral production in Canada has increased 58 per cent since 1929 and 76 per cent since 19,33. Here is an example of a new and permanent type of undertaking, productive of new and permanent jobs, of which I have been speaking. Engineering surveys of the northwest territories, the northern parts of the prairie provinces, the northwest corner of Ontario and the northeast comer of Quebec reveal an essentially untouched wealth which is virtually staggering -wealth which cannot be reached unless governments make ingress and egress possible. I think it is no exaggeration to state that there is work for hundreds of thousands of present and possibly new Canadians in this one undeveloped part of Canada, but the work cannot go forward unless the government is prepared to do its part. I commend to the attention of hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches the development by the Swedes of their iron mines within the arctic circle and Lapland as an illustration of how successfully a government and private capital may work together for the opening up of a new empire within the state.
Second, I suggest an extensive and intensive nation-wide program of afforestation and reforestation. We all realize how vitally important in our national scheme of economy are our forests, but we have been profligate in the treatment of our forests and have virtually decimated this priceless asset. The other day I took the trouble to make a rough calculation as to the possible practical limit of life of our commercial forests, and I came to the sickening conclusion that it could not be more than thirty years. Hardly daring to believe my own figures I consulted one whom I regard as an authority, and he told me that according to his calculation I was fifty per cent out, for he would make it about twenty years. Again let me point hon. members to Sweden. There, cutting in earnest started about 1850, or ninety years ago, and yet today Sweden has available forty per cent more timber and pulpwood than she had in 1850! It has -been demonstrated that our young men are willing and anxious to go into our forests and, with proper training made available, to become foresters. Here again are tens of thousands of jobs that could be made

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
available in a most constructive project, constructive not only in rehabilitating a vast number of our youth but in reestablishing a priceless national asset as well.
Third, I suggest an extended program of water conservation and flood control. My good friend the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), who has made a detailed study of this most important question, has pointed out in this house and outside of it on more than one occasion not only the necessity of such a program but its desirability from the point of view of creating work for thousands of our Canadian people. I shall not attempt to add to what he has already so ably said.
Fourth, I suggest a nation-wide intensive and immediate program to make Canada more attractive and accessible to the tourist. We cannot read the statistics of the trade of Canada without realizing what an invaluable asset to us are the natural beauties of our country, which attract tourists so that now millions of motor-cars with their cargo of tourists enter Canada every year from the United States and other thousands of Americans come by train and boat for our summer and winter sports. It seems to me that this trade is more important to us than ever this year because of the uncertainty of the European situation, the result being that a great many people who normally go to Europe for their holidays will not be going there this summer, and they might be attracted to Canada.
An important part of the maintenance and development of our tourist paradise is the construction and extension of national highways that will permit ready access for the tourists to those beauty spots in Canada which are a source of inchoate wonder for the visitor and native alike.
Hon. members may remind me that the construction of highways is public works. True. And that it is casual expenditure. True again, up to a point. But here are public works that would provide prolonged casual employment, and return of themselves manifold benefits to the dominion.
Another class of work which should be done to attract the tourist trade is in connection with the preservation of our game and game fisheries. Our game waters are rapidly being fished out; our game areas are rapidly being shot out; and provincially we are doing very little to restock either of them. Here is a long range program of work which would demand the employment of a countless number of our presently idle Canadians.
Fifth, I suggest a cooperative nation-wide housing plan sponsored by the federal and provincial governments in conjunction with
the municipalities. It is obvious that there is no greater need for the stabilization of our national life than the need of homes. Bad housing and slum conditions do more to promote ill health and crime than any other single factor within the national fabric. Couple with such conditions unemployment, which means idleness, and the results are what we are experiencing in Canada to-day. Recently we have been informed that the public works program for the year will include the building of parks and other similar municipal developments. Slums are the reciprocal of parks, and if parks are to be built, why could they not be built in our present slum areas? We have only to look at such countries as the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Denmark to realize how governments have been cooperating with private capital in the elimination of slums and the building of low cost comfortable dwellings. The results have been spectacular.
In Toronto those interested in housing and its allied problems recently met in conference, and it was brought out at the conference how successful had been the cooperative housing scheme in Nova Scotia. Here perhaps may be a Canadian model to be followed in a national way under the aegis of the federal government and with its support. A great part of the difficulty in the way of progress is, of course, realty taxation, but surely it is not beyond the realm of the activities of the federal government to confer with the provinces and the municipalities towards the end of lightening the ghastly and impossible burden of taxation which the home owner now has to carry. And what a contribution such a program would make to the welfare of the nation!
In the suggestions that I have made thus far, Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that probably the answer to be given will be the old chestnut of provincial rights. I firmly believe in provincial rights and provincial institutions, and in their protection. I firmly believe in the British North America Act, although I believe some parts of the act as it is now interpreted have been outmoded; but under the intent of that act I am sure there are no hazards in the way except that of provincial cooperation, and I am willing to guess that if the federal government were to propose broad and national plans for the development of the northwest territories, for the reestablishment of our forests, and for the development of our tourist trade and other such projects, popular opinion within the provinces, and certainly within the ranks of the unemployed within those provinces, and their families and dependents, would be so
2766	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
strongly in favour of provincial cooperation that every province in this dominion would be willing to cooperate fully.
Sixth, I suggest an immediate youth reestablishment program, commensurate with the size of the problem and embracing not only planned training but job placement as well. If the minister feels that the present plan is successful as far as it goes, why can it not be expanded to include not just a mere handful of our untrained youth as at present, but scores of thousands?
A few months ago the national youth congress forwarded to the Department of Labour a brief on "National Youth Administration." I have read this brief carefully and wish to congratulate the youth congress on the work which it has done. If one reads through this brief-and were there time I would read it so that it might appear on Hansard-one sees that the youth congress feels that an expansion of the present training plan is highly to be desired, and that there should be a national advisory committee to work in close conjunction with the national youth administration, this advisory committee to be composed of representatives of the government, youth administration, employers, trade unions, social service, education, farm and youth itself.
There are two motivating functions in the training of youth: (1) to educate and train; and (2) to assist in providing an outlet for activity. Thus it is that the youth congress recommends expansion of the facilities not only for the training of youth but also in the employment service of Canada, which of course serves not only our younger but our older Canadians.
The Technical Education Act of 1919 had an electric effect upon technical education, and, as the minister well knows, has been of untold value. Within the last few months I have talked with practically every deputy minister of education in Canada, and I have yet to find one who does not feel that the application of an act designed along the lines of the former Technical Education Act would be extraordinarily helpful, particularly at this time.
On our statute books, chapter 59 of the statutes of 1931, is the Vocational Education Act, which is described as "An act for the promotion of vocational education in Canada." This act provides for an annual appropriation of 1750,000 over a period of fifteen years to be made by the federal government to the governments of the various provinces. In a letter dated September 15, 1931, signed by the then deputy minister of labour, all provinces were notified that the

operation of this act would, in the terms of the letter, be postponed "until such time as economic conditions of the country warrant expenditures being made in connection with the work to be promoted under the terms of the act." To date no advances whatsoever have been made under that act. But I point out to the minister and the house that here under his hand is an act which he may put into effect without any action whatsoever on the part of this house, the only thing necessary to make it operative being an order in council. It seems to me extraordinary-and I do not wish to say anything controversial just here-that this act has not been called into play far earlier than this. What a contribution it could have made to our already heavily overcrowded technical schools!


Norman McLeod Rogers: Has my hon. friend the date of that act?


Denton Massey: Yes, I gave the date: August 3, 1931, 21-22 George V, chapter 59.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Passed by the previous government, and never implemented.


Denton Massey: It has been implemented; it is on the statute books.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But not one cent spent under it.


Denton Massey: That is what I said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, it was the hon.
member's party that was in power.


Denton Massey: Well, Mr. Speaker, I had
sincerely hoped that at this stage of the debate we could avoid controversy and petty partisan politics.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member set me
a bad example all afternoon.


Denton Massey: I trust, Mr. Speaker, that
I may be permitted to conclude my speech without that type of interruption. I would appreciate it.
Let me give an illustration of the possible operation of this act. Only the other day representatives of the board of education of Toronto applied to the minister for a grant towards the erection of a suitable building in that city for the purpose of extending the teaching of aeronautics in connection with the central technical school, which has already trained upwards of one thousand students in this subject in both day and evening classes. These students are seriously handicapped by lack of proper accommodation. The record of the course is, however, spectacular, because almost all of those who have taken it have found employment. The building asked

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
for was to cost $155,000. I would suggest that the Vocational Training Act of August 3, 1931, be called into play for this and similar projects so worth while from every point of view.
Mr. ROGERS':	Has my hon. friend the
act before him?


Denton Massey: Yes, I have. Would the
minister like to see it? I will send it over to him. It was sent to me from his own department.
Further, as a result of the essential discontinuance of apprenticeship there is becoming more apparent every day the scarcity of skilled mechanical labour for industry. In some classes of skilled work, such as ink mixing and die sinking, trained artisans are not to be found among the ranks of the unemployed. I suggest a national survey to determine in what fields of activity there is a scarcity of skilled labour, and those in which opportunity is the greatest.
The government, under the Vocational Training Act of 1931, which the minister now has in his hands, could concentrate efforts to train young unskilled artisans in these crafts. For example, with the development of Trans-Canada Air Lines and the increasing demand on the civilian population for services in all branches of aeronautical activity, are we providing training within the financial means of many of our youth? The costs of such training are excessively high and beyond the reach of many who would be of extraordinary value to this country.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my friend permit a
brief interjection? He has referred to this act as a medium through which assistance might be given to technical education. I find in the copy of the act which he has kindly sent to me a memorandum dated September 15, 1931, that is in the days of the preceding administration, which states-


Denton Massey: I read it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The letter was forwarded
to the various provincial governments, and states that the operation of the act was to be postponed "until such time as economic conditions of the country warrant expenditures being made in connection with the work to be promoted under the terms of the act." Does my hon. friend suggest that the situation has changed since that time?


Thomas Langton Church: I think you two had better hire a hall.


Denton Massey: I ask my hon. friend to
take a "broad view" of the matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Denton Massey: I read the letter; perhaps
the minister did not hear it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sorry, I did not.


Denton Massey: It seemed to me that the conditions would now warrant the application of that act.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit me to say that meanwhile this government has appropriated $1,500,000 for youth training, which is double the amount set out in that act.


Denton Massey: Quite so. I do not wish to enter on a controversial discussion, but that appropriation is for projects of the minister of a special kind. I was suggesting the application of this act to the expansion of existing technical schools, which is a different matter altogether from the projects the minister has in mind.
I might suggest here both the value and the need of state scholarships. I was going to say something kind to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin)-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you very much.


Denton Massey: -who so ably introduced this question in a resolution he has on the order paper, which resolution, if it is ever reached, I hope to have the privilege of seconding. An hon. member suggests it may be "moribund," but he says that, I do not.
Seventh, I wish to suggest to the government for their most serious consideration the establishment of camps similar to those of the civilian conservation corps in the United States. I have before me a considerable quantity of literature concerning them, which I have perused with a great deal of interest. The camps are designed, so this pamphlet informs me, so that those who attend them have an opportunity "to work, to live, to learn and to build." Through the work of these camps hundreds of thousands of young men, now running into millions, have profited beyond the possibility of expression, as have the United States of America.
I also have here a series of articles which appeared recently in the Toronto Globe and Mail, written by that able correspondent Mr. Winston Norman, in the course of which articles he points out some of the less advantageous features of these civilain conservation camps in addition to demonstrating their many good points. The Globe and Mail is to be congratulated upon bringing to the attention of the public through these articles not only the work of the civilian conservation corps camps but also other suggestions which have been made for similar projects.
Perhaps the most interesting suggestion that has been made along these lines recently



Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
comes, it seems to be, from a source from which many feel that such a suggestion, should come, that is from the young unemployed transients themselves, from a group of splendid young Canadians, homeless unemployed, who have been quartered this winter in the city of Toronto in "John Frank's house." These lads have suggested in a memorandum, of which I have before me a copy, dated February 22, that camps be set up across Canada, no single camp to contain a greater number than one hundred and twenty-five, civilian camps, to train and provide work and wages and do something constructive for this dominion. I read part of the memorandum:
One type of camp-a combined work project and training scheme-should be for men under twenty-five years of age. In these camps, men should be housed, fed, clothed, and paid a wage of a dollar per day. Their daily schedule should be almost equally divided between honest work, under rigid supervision, on useful works projects, and between training of a vocational and educational nature fitting them to enter primary or secondary industry as self-reliant citizens.
A second type of camp, for men over twenty-five years of age, should be established on a straight works camp basis, paying 35 cents per hour for work honestly done, less reasonable charges for medical care and housing. Here again, for the good of the men, it would be advisable to make a further division in age groups, setting aside some camps for men over forty years of age. .	.	.
We should also suggest a general housecleaning of government employment bureaux- a matter which is sadly overdue-so that they might be able to give aggressive and efficient assistance in finding employment for men at the conclusion of their camp work.
The possibilities along this line, Mr. Speaker, are legion. The way is clear; the challenge is there. Something must be done if we are to save democracy. I am a firm believer in youth, particularly in our Canadian youth; so I feel that one of the greatest of all challenges to the government of Canada is to give leadership and opportunity to our youth.
Eighth-not a direct suggestion for the creation of jobs, but rather an indirect, and certainly not an original suggestion, since it was contained in the report of the national employment commission to which I have already referred-is the setting up of government employment bureaux under federal administration, and to have those bureaux efficiently operated from coast to coast. It is true that the government itself said the cost of operating these bureaux, amounting to upwards of half a million dollars a year, was too great; but what is half a million dollars a year if thousands of jobs could be found by modernized, efficient bureaux, compared with the cost of relief, let alone the contribution to the humanitarian side of the question?
IMr. Massey.]
Ninth, I suggest that the government give some leadership by cooperating with private capital along the lines of internal, industrial, economic readjustment. The need for such readjustment arises not alone as a result of depressed internal trade or depressed external trade but also from our own shifting economies and new world economies. To use the illustration I mentioned this afternoon, as more oil is consumed, less coal is required; as further hydro electric developments are completed, less coal is required. Thus if we contract in our coal fields, why should we not expand in our oil fields, developed and undeveloped, when we have the oil we now possess?
Tenth, I suggest an intensive, nation-wide, government sponsored campaign under such a title, perhaps, as "Canada's prosperity year." Public relations, a comparatively new phase of advertising and publicity, has been employed successfully by particular businesses or industries in the United States to move large inventories and to expand markets. We have a national radio in Canada and a press that I think would be willing to cooperate fully with the federal government in a nationwide, well directed publicity campaign to help restore the confidence of business and industry and create a public interest in the purchase of made-in-Canada goods. As an example of what I mean the minister will recall the "Eat more fish" campaign conducted in Great Britain not so many years ago, and the campaign conducted by the egg producers' association of the United States more recently, which lifted an inventory of millions of dozens of eggs. Unlimited are the domestic results and the consequent increases in employment possible under an efficiently controlled campaign. For instance, if the 11,173 secondary industries reporting to the bureau of statistics were to add ten per cent to their staffs, one hundred thousand men would be put to work to-morrow.
Finally, the eleventh suggestion I have to make is for a great dominion, provincial and municipal conference to be presided over by some outstanding empire figures such as Lord Willingdon, who has a knowledge not only of Canada but of the empire. The purpose of this conference would be to determine legislative steps to be taken toward the end of a social reform program to bring the economic system under which we live up to date and to purge that system of some of the evils practised within it. Unemployment insurance, minimum wages, hours of work, social services, housing and many other such vitally necessary reforms could be discussed and determined upon, so that the parliament of Canada, in

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
cooperation with provincial legislatures and municipal and town councils, could work towards the end of reestablishing our social system on an equitable and fair basis. I plan to discuss this suggestion more fully at a later date.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker-and I am sure the right hon. minister will be pleased to hear these words-I am convinced that no shocking or conspicuous revolution is necessary in the Canadian institution of parliament. What Canada needs and expects of its government is resolute and forthright action, and the application of that energetic and intelligent set of principles usually referred to as common sense. We must forsake the political charms of lethargy and assume the responsibilities of action. We must forget that doctrine which says to those in high office, " If we will sit quietly, with folded hands, and express nothing but amiable platitudes, well calculated to avoid all friction, it will all come out all right at the next election." The path for us to follow is not the primrose path of doctrinaire socialism or monetary inflation but the difficult British method of clearing away one obstacle at a time. These are days of progression, not retrogression. Never was the challenge more clarion in its note. I should like to read a few words from the notes of a speech I made in Toronto on December 8 of last year:
Those of us who have sat in parliament realize with painful obviousness the tragedy that there is when a government temporizes with difficulties that are by no means insoluble and when only palliative and emergency measures are employed to deal with permanent vexatious problems. Our problems in Canada to-day are by no means emergency problems, hut are by way of being permanent problems, and for three years we have temporized with their results rather than dealt in a forthright manner with their causes. If we would retain our present form of government, if we would maintain our democracy, let us realize that if inactivity is permitted to continue in Ottawa we are paving the way for a revision, perhaps violent, of our present system of government. If I were asked to sum up in one or two words the greatest need in Canada to-day, I could give you an answer, and that would be "courageous, federal leadership."
In view of the situation which prevails in Canada relative to unemployment and its accompanying distress, and relative to agriculture and its distressed condition; in view of the plight of our Canadian youth, I urge the government, with all the earnestness of which I am capable, to forsake the charms of lethargy and to accept the challenge issued to it by every citizen of Canada to give our country the courageous leadership which it so sorely needs.
71492-175J


Mr. R. J. DEACHMAN (Huron North):: Mr. Speaker, democracy is singularly careless of its records. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) started his speech on March 15, 1939; he is finishing it on April 13, fortunately of the same year. Between the first and second sections of his speech there are approximately a thousand pages of Hansard, and I fear that the man who comes to search the records in order to see what the Conservative party tried to do about unemployment may read through the first section, lose the other end and forget all about the resolutions which were contained in the conclusion. I suggest that since the hon. gentleman started his speech, youth perhaps has grown up. I know in that time I have had a grandson, and to-night I will ask him what he thinks of the latter part of the speech of the hon. member for Greenwood.
I have this consolation, however, in regard to that speech. There is one section of which I am proud, because I wrote it myself. I refer to the quotation given by the hon. member entitled "The Myth of the Works Program." The view which I held then, I hold now. I am very glad indeed if my hon. friend agrees with me in regard to one detail.
I often wonder, when I listen to speeches like this, if it would not be better if we could employ our motion picture board to record the scene. If de Mille could put "Moses and the Ten Commandments" on the screen, why could not our new film board have, as its first task, "Massey and his New Commandments?" There are other things we might add. We might provide glimpses of certain sections of the house. Where is the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), the- dark raven of Conservatisnn? Then here and there would come from different sections of that corner of the house little cries for more protection, more protection and a higher tariff, That would be the background of the whole play.	-
But I question very much if my hon. friend will cure unemployment, even with his brilliant speech. It is an old disease of the human race. Jesus mentioned it when he said the poor ye have always with you. It was recorded in the days of the Roman empire, and it came to Spain during the collapse which followed the expansion after the discovery of the continent of north America. It was present in England after the battle of Waterloo. There is recorded one riot in England which is sometimes referred to as the battle of Peterloo, which occurred four or five years after the battle of Waterloo. Several men were killed and hundreds were injured in a strike which arose basically over


Denton Massey: Will the hon. gentleman permit me? He does not want to misrepresent me, I am sure. I said at the beginning of my speech-


Robert John Deachman: Is the hon. member going to make another speech?


Denton Massey: There is not the slightest danger. I do not think my hon. friend wants to misrepresent me, but if he does-


Robert John Deachman: Go ahead.


Denton Massey: At the outset I said I would not deal with agriculture in my speech, and therefore the suggestion I made at its conclusion dealt with the subject matter of my remarks only, which were on unemployment.


Robert John Deachman: My hon. friend gave
a list; I am coming to those items, and I am going to deal with the agricultural phases. I want to deal now with the particular relationship of agriculture to industry, in which my hon. friend is especially interested. In the course of his remarks he suggested that the tendency of the Liberals to lower the price of products was destructive of the industrial life of the country. Liberals lowering the price of products destructive of our industrial life? Now listen for a moment. In 1930 farm products and manufactured goods were practically upon an even keel. In 1932, agricultural products fell to 48-4, and manufactured products stood at 69-8. In 1934, farm products stood at 59, and manufactured goods at 63. To-day agricultural products stand at approximately 64, and manufactured products at roughly 74. Yet in the face of that my hon. friend this afternoon made his plea: Do not disturb the manufacturer. Do not disturb him when you know that the only thing you can do to solve the great problem before the people of Canada to-day is to make at least a decent effort to restore equilibrium between the price level of manufactured goods and the price level of farm products.
I now come to his point about trade balances, on which my hon. friend has always been an expert. He said this afternoon that imports of goods destroy employment.


Denton Massey: I never made any such
statement.


Robert John Deachman: I wrote his words
down, and his statement was this: The import of products into this country displaces labour, and therefore must destroy employment.
2772	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Denton Massey: Ridiculous. I made no such statement.


Robert John Deachman: Yes, it is absolutely
ridiculous.


Denton Massey: And most unfair.


Robert John Deachman: Let my hon. friend
take the word of the bureau of statistics in this matter. Here are the imports over a period of years. Statements such as my hon. friend made to-day one can find studded all over Conservative speeches in the House of Commons for the last thirty years. Imports into this country in 1923 amounted to $802,000000, and in succeeding years they rose to $893,000,000, $796,000,000, and to $927,000,000 in 1926; in succeeding years $1,030,000,000, $1,108,000,000, $1,265,000,000, $1,248,000,000, and in 1930, $906,000,000. I leave it to any man in the house, is it not true that in those years of increasing imports there was much less unemployment than there is to-day? Is it not true that these were the banner years of employment in this dominion? And these were the years, barring the war years, when we had the greatest volume of imports. Why is this true? The hon. member for Greenwood-I speak of him with the highest respect, and he made a brilliant speech this afternoon -has failed to understand the first and most basic principle of economics, that imports are payments which you receive for your exports, and when you are receiving payments for the goods you sell, how could you be going broke at the same time, if you are selling enough goods?
Let me quote a distinguished authority, Maynard Keynes. I hesitate to quote him because he changes his mind quite frequently, and I give my hon. friend this tip, that if he will look up Keynes he may find that he changes his mind somewhere in regard to this. Maynard Keynes says:
It does not follow .	.	. that the maximum degree of restriction of imports will promote the maximum favourable balance of trade.
So the doctrine my friend advocates, for a mistaken purpose, will not secure the end he has in view. Maynard Keynes continues:
The earlier mercantilists laid great emphasis on this-	.
My hon. friend is one of the old-fashioned mercantilists.
and were often to be found opposing trade restrictions because on a long view they were liable to operate adversely to a favourable balance. It is, indeed, arguable that in the special circumstances of mid-nineteenth century Great Britain an almost complete freedom of trade was the policy most conducive to the development of a favourable balance. Contemporary experience of trade restrictions in

post-war Europe offers manifold examples of ill-conceived impediments on freedom which, designed to improve the favourable balance, had in fact a contrary tendency.
I venture to suggest this to my hon. friends, that a keen desire to promote favourable trade balances by the restriction of trade has been the main reason why they have failed to have favourable trade balances while the Conservatives were in power. I quote again:
Leaving out the period, 1915 to 1920-
Circumstances were different in those war and post-war years.
-there have been, since confederation, twenty-seven favourable mercantile trade balances; eleven of these were under Conservative administration, sixteen under Liberal administration.
Sixteen were under Liberal administration, and the favourable balances under a Liberal administration in 1925 and 1926 exceeded the total favourable balances under Conservative rule since confederation. That is the argument, and that is the fact. But I throw it to my hon. friend and I say, take it, it is nothing to me. This country may be prosperous under a favourable balance or equally prosperous under an unfavourable balance, and the people of Canada are just as capable of looking after their balances and getting along with them very well, as is my hon. friend the member for Greenwood.
There is one other point to which I wish to direct attention. I have .pointed out that the Liberal way in regard to this problem is the way of lower tariffs. The Liberals are not alone in regard to that policy. Let me read this extract:
Even a slight improvement in trade generally does more to reduce unemployment than all the artificial remedies anyone has ever thought of, and it is a significant fact that tile easing of international tension which made itself felt after the German chancellor's speech at the end of last month produced instantaneous improvements in the trade reports which come in to the government from all parts of the country. Our object is to draw the nations closer together and assist them to prosper through trade.
Whose speech was that? I quote from Prime Minister Chamberlain at Blackpool, Lancashire, England, in February of this year. The Liberals are not alone in this point of view. The nations of the world, the leaders of the nations, the great bankers and the statesmen, all realize the importance of trade as a factor in increasing the prosperity of the nation. But we have one small and stem little group in this country which believes that the solution of unemployment lies in the restriction of trade.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Nonsense.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Robert John Deachman: Nonsense? Quite true. There can be no more complete nonsense, but they continue to argue it as they have always done. Lower tariffs move goods, and more goods mean cheaper goods. There is the problem which the Dominion of Canada requires to solve to-day.
Then there is the question of an equilibrium between farm prices and prices of manufactured goods. Finally, there must be an effort to extend to the consumers of Canada the gains which accrue to industry from improvements of the technical and mechanical means of production. I read not long ago an able speech by an American, Doctor Nourse, in which he pointed out that it was his firm belief that in the period between 1900 and 1914 the failure to raise the standard of living in the United States was on account of the fact that monopoly control at that time took for the industries and did not give to the nation the result of the improvements which occurred during that period.
The other day I picked up a copy of Canadian Business. It too recognizes the movement in this direction. Here is a special article by a gentleman named S. C. Scobell, which touches the point:
Some way must 'be found to allow the masses to buy more, so that we can resume the vital expansion in the capital goods industries which, in a saving society, is necessary to maintain income and employment.
To increase such purchasing power, there must be a progressive decrease in manufacturing costs to enable prices to be reduced and potential markets tapped. Unhappily, there is a tendency in this country towards a rigidity of selling prices which prevents such expansion in domestic markets and closes the door to new private investment for increased facilities.
There is the problem which confronts the nation, the simple and direct problem of bringing the price of goods within the capacity of the nation to buy. If you cannot solve your problem in that way, believe me you will not solve it by things like this:	a program of
water conservation and flood control, extra nation-wide afforestation and reforestation, the opening up of the northwest territories and northern Ontario and Quebec. A gallant program-yes.
But I want to relate briefly the story of five boys on a farm. They were called A, B, C, D and X, and sometimes X was given the name of Denton. These boys and the old man were discussing farming operations. The boys argued about what they would do. Some said they would increase their investment in poultry, and some were going to extend their dairying. Then X spoke up and said, "You are all wrong, we must create things which we do not need. Let us have
a goldfish bowl in the front yard, and let us have a monument to protection in the backyard, and a lot of other things, and the creation of these things, while it may not give us much money, will give us employment." Then the old man spoke up-and in these instances sometimes the old man is wise-and said to them, "Boys, there are three things you can do. First, you can produce goods for your own consumption, to the full extent that you need. Next, you can produce goods for export. Next, you can develop your capital facilities if it is within your power to do so. But you must do economically whatever you do, and do the thing which it is within your capacity to do."
My hon. friend suggests that we should go to the farthest points, to the north, the east, the south, all over, and do these things, not stopping to consider that the intensive development of our resources within the existing provinces is perhaps the most profitable thing to do. Profit does not come into his mind. There are in the province of Ontario vast areas of splendid farm lands capable of producing immense wealth if we but had the capacity to get a market for these products- and it can be found. There are ample fields for development fairly close to our railways or close at least to our waterways. But neither this nor any other nation can afford to go into remoter spheres of development without first doing the tasks which lie close at hand. We have over-expanded in Canada; we have built railways to places where they were not needed. What is required is not only a conservation but a concentration of effort with the idea of using all our forces in industry and in the national economy to produce the maximum wealth with the minimum of cost. My hon. friend may not, perhaps, feel an impulse in that direction. He may not have come in contact with the necessity of economy. But the Canadian people have learned in a hard school. We have spent too much. We know our lesson. We will develop what lies close to our door, and in doing that we shall develop our wealth to a greater extent than we could do in any other way that may be brought to our attention.
I submit these matters to the house for consideration as an appropriate attempt to solve the problem which faces Canada to-day.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman), who has just resumed his seat, referred to the groups in the house and to their policies with regard to the economic problems which confront us. From the reference he made to the group to which
2774	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
I belong, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, I feel that he could not have read our program; either that or he did not understand it. I do not think the latter is the case, because I have a high regard for my hon. friend's intelligence.
I was interested in one remark which he made, when, after referring to an article in Canadian Business by Mr. Scofeell, he said that the problem which confronts the people is to bring prices of goods within the capacity of consumers to pay. I should like to tell the hon. member that is exactly what cannot be done under our present economic system because the producers of commodities, who are also in large measure the consumers of commodities, must first of all sell their labour power, and every employer of labour is trying to get that labour power at the cheapest possible price. The larger his balance over and above what labour costs him, the more profitable is his business. The farmer is in the same position. The hon. gentleman shakes his head, but I know businessmen. I have negotiated with businessmen in regard to wages, and I have always found that the lower the wage, the more satisfied they were. As I say, the farmer is not in a much better position than the city worker. There are a great many factors in connection with his economic position which I do not wish to go into- to-night, because I did not prepare myself for a consideration of the farmer's point of view; but he is in the same trap, caught in the same system as his brother the industrial worker. First of all, he is selling in a market over which he has no control, a market that is absolutely uncontrolled as far as he is concerned, and if it is ever controlled it is controlled against him, as was definitely proved in the price spreads and mass buying commission's report. He is buying in a market that is doubly controlled. In the first place it is controlled by the large industrialists, and it is still further controlled by the fiscal policies of governments. It is therefore absolutely impossible for producers of wealth under the capitalist system to consume what they produce. May I say for the benefit of hon. friends to my left that this is not because there is not sufficient money, but because the people who need the money also need the goods and have neither, and the people who have the money also have the goods. That is the reason why the end desired as much by my hon friend (Mr. Deachman) as by myself cannot be brought about under the capitalist system,
We listened throughout the afternoon and for a considerable part of this evening to a trenchant criticism by the hon. member for

Greenwood (Mr. Massey) of the government's policy or lack of policy in regard to unemployment. I found myself in large measure in agreement with what he said, but in my opinion there were certain weaknesses and a few contradictions in his lengthy speech. Throughout his address, which concerned itself with unemployment and its effects on the individual and the community, there was not a word as to the cause of unemployment. It seems to me it is difficult to deal with a problem if its cause is not first ascertained. The hon. member did, of course, refer to the government's fiscal policy, but I hope I would be doing him an injustice if I said that he considered the economic stress we have been going through for the last few years as being entirely a result of the fiscal policy of any government. I do not think he would say that. There must then, I believe, be some underlying and fundamental cause for unemployment.
I have stated in this house on many occasions my own opinion as to the cause of unemployment and I will not repeat it at any length to-night, except to say that I still believe that unemployment is the natural result of our system or method of production and distribution. To convince ourselves of the correctness of that statement, I think it is only necessary to observe that the more the means of production increase and the more the instruments of production are perfected, the greater the economic insecurity of the masses of the people becomes.
The economic depression which began in the fall of 1929 and which is still with us is a depression of abundance and not of scarcity, and until we have satisfied ourselves as to the reasons for these paradoxes we are not likely to make much progress in solving unemployment and other related problems.
I have sat in this house since the election of 1930, and I remember that during the greater part of the life of the last parliament it was admitted by all parties that unemployment was the most serious problem facing the people. Indeed, the chief charge which the Liberal party then in opposition brought against the former government was that it had failed to end unemployment. This government has been in office now for three and a half years and it, too, has failed to end unemployment. Not only has it failed to do that, but it has failed to make decent provision for those on relief. It has failed to organize any plan whereby unemployment as a social and economic problem can be definitely disposed of. The number of the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
unemployed is increasing, and the misery and degradation resulting from unemployment are also becoming more widespread.
During the five years the Conservative party was in office, not for one day was it allowed to forget the promises it had made to end unemployment. But those members who were so vociferous then have been strangely silent during the past three years. It would seem that their interest in the unemployed has evaporated. For instance, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), who I am sorry is not in his place to-night, was one of the loudest in his condemnation of the former government. The miseries of the unemployed weighed heavily on his heart during the whole time from 1930 to 1935. On February 20, 1935, a little over four years ago, he moved an amendment to the motion to go into supply. His amendment came at the end of a lengthy speech, and it will be found in Hansard at page 1194. It reads:
This house regrets that, notwithstanding the specific promises made prior to the election of 1930, and many times since reiterated, and despite the fact that extraordinary powers to deal with unemployment have been repeatedly secured from parliament, the present administration, after nearly five years of office, has not yet submitted to parliament any definite or effective policy to deal witl} widespread actual unemployment or distress which continues to be Canada's most urgent national problem.
As I said, we have been here for another period of four years, and the mover of that amendment is a shining light in the government of the day, yet unemployment still continues to be Canada's most urgent national problem. There has not yet been submitted to us any definite or effective policy to deal with it. The. minister's mind, which was so fertile when in opposition, has been exceedingly barren since 1935.
Unemployment statistics make very distressing reading indeed. I have been examining the reports of the national registration department for a number of months. They show that the difference between the number receiving relief at the end of 1938 as compared with 1937, and at the beginning of this year, is getting less. For instance, in October, 1938, the number on relief had dropped 155,000 from October, 1937, but the decrease was only 26,186 in January, 1938, compared with January 1939.
When the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) spoke to this resolution on March 15, he endeavoured to show from statistics that, to use his own words, "we have been making substantial progress in reducing the number of unemployed." In one set of figures he showed
that the total number on direct relief decreased from 1,326,000 in January, 1936, to 1,178,000 in January, 1937, and again to 1,015,000 in January', 1938, and to 978,000 in January, 1939. I believe that last figure was a preliminary one, and the final number may possibly be greater. The figures therefore show a decrease, although not a great reduction. But I submit that the figures given are not all the figures, and do not show all those who are getting assistance from the government. What has really happened from January, 1936, to January, 1939, is not so much a decrease in the total number receiving direct relief as a change in the heading under which relief is given. For example, the number receiving old age pensions in 1935 was 101,000. In 1938, that number had increased by 75.000 to 176,000. I think it is fair to assume that in 1935 many of those
75.000	were listed as receiving direct relief. It must also be noted that there is no registration of persons as receiving relief in New Brunswick. In January, 1935, 26.500 persons were listed as receiving direct relief in that province. But assistance is being given to New Brunswick on account of unemployment. Last year the amount was $225,000, which amount I suppose corresponds to the 30 per cent paid to the other provinces towards direct relief. It is reasonable then to suppose that if there were unemployment registration in New Brunswick at the present time, the number unemployed and receiving assistance would be somewhat larger than in Nova Scotia, because the assistance given in 1938-39 by the federal government is slightly more for New Brunswick than for Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia in December, 1938, there were almost
11.000	receiving direct relief. We may assume then that some 11,000 were in receipt of assistance in New Brunswick in view of the amount of money paid by the federal government. Adding that number to the increase of 75.000 in old age pensioners, makes 86.000.
In Quebec a law providing for mothers' allowances recently came into effect. The latest estimate I obtained is that some 6,000 mothers, heads of families, with approximately 25,000 dependents, are receiving assistance under that legislation. It is fair to assume that most, if not all, of that number, some 30,000, would be receiving unemployment relief.
Since 1935 we have had a considerable number of persons transferred from unemployment to relief of another kind through the operation of the War Veterans' Allowance-Act. This act was extended in 1938 to apply to all veterans not capable of maintaining
2776	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
themselves. The number of veterans receiving assistance under this head at the close of the fiscal year ended March 31, 1939, was 5,150. The annual report of the war veterans' allowance board has this to say in regard to this class of relief recipients:
When considering expenditure under this legislation, it is well to remember that the allowance is awarded to those in necessity who are incapable of maintaining themselves and even had the act not been enacted, the great majority of those receiving its benefits would of necessity have had to be maintained by the community in one form or another.
The War Veterans' Allowance Act was enacted only in 1930, yet on February 1, 1939, returned men to the number of 19,250 were receiving assistance under it. It is exceedingly significant that the number receiving assistance in this category increased by 4,230 from February 1, 1938, to February 1, 1939. It seems to me then that it is very little use for the Minister of Labour to tell this house that the number on relief is decreasing. It is not. We are just transferring people from the form of state assistance which we call unemployment relief to some other form of state assistance.
But that is not all. During the last few years provincial governments and the municipalities have been "chiseling" on the unemployed and thus reducing the relief rolls but increasing the sum total of distress and want. Early in 1938 the government of my own province notified the municipalities and cities within its borders that under a ruling of the federal Department of Labour the provincial government would no longer be able to contribute any portion of the cost of relief for unemployable persons. I have since been informed that the federal Department of Labour did not make any such ruling, but that the provincial government just had a bright idea for putting more of the burden of unemployment relief on the municipalities. To some extent they succeeded in doing that, with the result that the cities and municipalities in British Columbia have been for the past year carrying thousands of unemployed who were formerly getting assistance from the dominion and provincial governments.
The municipalities are also doing their share of "chiseling" on the unemployed. In [DOT] Vancouver, when an unemployed person gets work for a short time and then comes back on relief, he must give a strict account of every cent of wages earned by him during the period when he was working, and for every S75 of wages received during the period of employment he is supposed to keep himself 
and family for one month. No allowance is made for the number of dependants. No account is taken of the fact that clothes and household goods wear out. No account is taken of the fact that dental and medical needs are postponed during periods of unemployment. Indeed, regulations of this kind put a premium on Shiftlessness.
What I am stating now is clearly demonstrated by the employment and relief statistics of the Department of Labour and the bureau of statistics, as the following figures will indicate. While the number estimated as being unemployed is increasing, the number actually getting unemployment relief or assistance is decreasing. I think the following figures are interesting:
Employables Wage-earners
on relief unemployed 1938 as	1938 as
against 1937	against 1937
per cent	per cent
January	..	..	36-6	down	14-2	downFebruary..	..	32-7	down	4-2	downMarch	
32-0	down	1-3	upApril	
31-0	down	7-3	upMay	
28-4	down	22-0	up
And that * trend continues during every month for the year. It might interest the house to learn that during the first eleven months of 1938 only 36 per cent of the estimated unemployed were receiving relief at all. The report on employment by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics for March makes rather interesting reading. On page 2 there is a comparison of the estimated number of wage-earners employed and the estimated number of wage-earners unemployed in December of each year from 1928 to 1938. In December, 1938, the estimated number of wage-earners unemployed was 472,000 as against 381.000 in 1937, or an estimated increase of 91,000. But in December, 1938, the estimated number of wage-earners was 61,000 less than in 1937. That is rather absurd; surely we had as many wage-earners in 1938 as we had in 1937. But if we add the 61,000 to the 91,000 we get a total increase of 152,000 unemployed in December, 1938, compared with 1937. These figures, I think, are ample and conclusive evidence that the policy, or lack of policy, of this government is not even checking the failure of private industry to put the people of this country to work. From Victoria to Sydney comes a despairing cry from people crushed and broken by poverty, destitution and degrading misery. Almost every issue of every newspaper in Canada has its story of misery and want. A few weeks ago I saw in one of the Ottawa newspapers a heading over a news item from northern Ontario,

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
"Starvation brings great suffering in northern Ontario." The article reads as follows:
Ansonville, Ont., March 7. Dr. E. J. Clouthier, medical officer of health, said to-day five cases of scurvy have been discovered in this northern Ontario village three miles south of Iroquois Falls. He said the disease was the "direct result of starvation and deprivation of the essential foods." . . .
The disease is caused by a lack of vegetables and fruits in the daily diet. It was said many residents of the village who are employed at paper mills in Iroquois Falls are working only part time and are unable to purchase these essential foods.
So not only are the unemployed suffering; in many instances those who are employed are suffering as well. Then a Canadian press dispatch from Stellarton, Nova Scotia, under date of November 29, 1938, gives another story of poverty and destitution. The press dispatch referred to was based upon a survey made by a committee appointed by the United Mine Workers of Stellarton, employees of the Acadia Coal Company, operating in that district. I should like to read at least part of this dispatch which appeared in the Halifax Herald:
Stellarto i, N.S., November 28. The following is a Irief prepared by the U.M.W. committee on the conditions of the Stellarton school children whose fathers are employed by the Acadia Coal Company.
These are not the children of unemployed but of employed workers.
Local union 4481, U.M.A. of A., Stellarton, has made a house to house survey of living conditions of the families of coal miners living in the different sections of the town, and the results of this survey have convinced our organization that these facts should be placed before the Nova Scotia government in an effort to have financial aid sent into Stellarton, to relieve some of the distress that our survey has disclosed, before the cold weather sets in, otherwise a serious epidemic will be the result of this shortage of clothing and undernourishment that to-day faces the large per cent of the population of this town.	,
A statement taken from eighty-four families covering 040 children, and this is only one-quarter of the survey taken, reveals that these people are living in a state of starvation. The average earnings of these people for the last nine months has been ($8) eight dollars per week, to supply food, clothing, milk, medicine, lights and dental care, resulting in the fact that eighty per cent of these children do not know the taste of cow's milk, and milk in any form is a luxury in most of these houses.
Another fact that our survey has disclosed is that these people are living, or trying to live, on the magnificent sum of 19 cents per day, which is below the rate allowed^ to maintain inmates of any prison or industrial home in the Dominion of Canada.
The town of Stellarton, in an effort to assist these people, has put into effect a work project that is insufficient to begin to take care of the distress that is apparent in Stellarton. Miners who have not received any work for weeks are given twro days work under this project at
$2.50 per day for nine hours work. Some of these miners have families ranging from five to twelve people, which our survey had disclosed, in a great majority of cases, have been receiving a wage for the last six years that is, at least, 40 per cent below a decent Canadian standard of living, resulting to-day in the fact that most of these people's clothing, both bed and wearing apparel, is worn out, also their furniture, and under the present set-up of the work project that is being put into effect in Stellarton, and the conditions of the mines which are only operating one and two days per week, these people cannot supply to their children the necessary food that will keep them in normal health, to say nothing of getting warm clothing that will supply a measure of protection against the cold winters that we experience in Nova Scotia and allow these children to attend school and equip them with the necessary education that will allow them in future years to take their rightful place in our society and become good citizens of Canada.
There is a picture of want and degradation that demands attention. It is not a solitary instance; it is something which can Ibe duplicated in almost every province in Canada. Conditions may not be as bad in some sections as in others, but if they are not it is because the people over the years have been able to organize and have worked and agitated for better conditions. It would not be so bad if there were any just cause for such conditions, if this were the result of a poverty of resources. But that is not so. It is the result of bad economic organization and ruthless exploitation. It is a striking example of poverty in the midst of plenty, of starvation in a land of abundance. As I listened on March 15 to the recital by the Minister of Labour of how the government was overcoming unemployment, my mind went back to perhaps happier days when I found pleasure in reading Lewis Carroll's classic, "Alice in Wonderland." Hon. members who have had the pleasure of reading that fantasy will remember how Alice and the red queen had to keep going at top speed in order to remain in the same place. My good friend the Minister of Labour is doing just what Alice was doing. No matter how hard he goes, he merely manages to keep in the same place. But I doubt if he will be able to keep in the same place much longer. I am sorry to have to say it, but the fact is that all the efforts of the minister and the government since they came into office, as far as unemployment is concerned, have left them in the same place as they were when they started.
In going through my papers a few days ago I came across a leaflet which was distributed by the Liberal party during the election of 1935. It makes interesting reading to-day, interesting I presume for everyone but Liberals. This is headed in large type, " Jobs or doles-
2778	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
which?" Then follows a quotation from Mr. R. B. Bennett, on January 2, 1935:
Canada on the dole is like a young man in the poorhouse.
Then the leaflet states:
After five years of Conservative government more than one-tenth of the Canadian people are on direct relief.
During these five years to March, 1935, the dominion government has spent $312,328,098.97 on relief. This does not include the wheat guarantee which may be estimated at anywhere from $150,000,000 to $250,000,000. It does not include the public works program of 1935.
This was election propaganda. It continues:
The national debt has risen by $800,000,000 between 1930 and 1935.
It goes on to give unemployment figures, showing 596.946 persons on relief in May, 1932, and 1,341,942, in February, 1935. It continues:
When the Liberal government was in office men and women had jobs. Vote Liberal and get back from the poorhouse.
The people voted Liberal, but they are still in the poorhouse. And they are more likely to stay there than ever before. When the minister was speaking on March 15, he made this statement:
. . . and when it is considered also that, despite the sharp recession in the United States in the latter part of 1937 and 1938, our figures of employment kept relatively constant, there is evidence here of the recuperative powers of this young country-
That reminds me of Mr. Bennett.
-and if only we had more faith in the recuperative powers of Canada, if only leaders of industry had more faith in the recuperative powers of Canada, it would be possible, I say, for us to make a substantial reduction in the number of unemployed this year.
Is the welfare of the people of Canada to depend upon the faith of the industrial leaders of Canada? If the industrial leaders of Canada will not show faith, is this government going to say that nothing can be done about it, that we must continue to remain in poverty? I am satisfied that the government cannot do that and hope to continue this as a democratic country. During the last few years we have heard a great deal about democracy, but if there is one thing that stands out clearly, it is that the greatest democratic progress occurred during the last half of the nineteenth century and the first two decades of this century, during which time we had the greatest period of economic expansion the world has ever known. We must make the wealth of this country available to the people of this country if we hope to maintain our democratic institutions. If we do not do that, regardless of whether or not our industrial leaders have faith, we are bound to be over-
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
taken by the malady that has already overtaken a great part of the world.
I wish to say a few words in regard to the single unemployed. I am not sure that the plight of the single unemployed is worse than that of the rest of the unemployed, but it appears to be. The national economy of Canada, as was pointed out by the national employment commission, demands a large army of unattached men who can on short notice move from one place to another to meet the demand for labour. We can all remember the thousands of men who were required to harvest the grain crops in the prairie provinces prior to 1930. That work lasted for only a few weeks, and then those men moved on to other fields of activity. The demand for that type of labour is not as great to-day, but there is still a certain need for it. In its final report the national employment commission drew attention to this problem. At page 88 of appendix D to their report, the commission had this to say:
Development of Canada's resources demands a large supply of vigorous, mobile labour. A shifting labour reserve, without definite residence, while aggravated in recent years by lack of opportunity for gainful occupation, is not only a natural but almost an essential feature of production in this country. Our great primary activities, along with closely allied secondary industries, employ almost half of the gainfully occupied population, the overwhelming percentage of whom are unskilled or semiskilled wage earners. As such they are dependent for gainful occupation upon circumstances quite outside their own control. In many cases their occupations are seasonal and carried on in the isolation of frontier or "new" country. These men must move with employment demands. or lack of the same, and thus have not a free choice as to their place of residence. It is practically impossible for a man in this category to establish residence anywhere. Although he may have five or ten years' history of almost continuous employment it may be spread over widely different occupations in varying localities, one place in summer, another in winter, and so, when idle, he keeps "moving on" in search of work, always hoping that somewhere the job he finds will last long enough to let him get "settled."
The commission, as the Minister of Labour well knows, give a general review of the so-called transient unemployed problem, and they conclude by saying:
Until these two distinct phases of the one problem "residence" and "social need" are segregated and each dealt with along appropriate lines, on a dominion-wide basis, the problem of bewildered shifting families, and of thousands of men. in unceasing trek in search of a "toehold" will continue to defeat the best and most determined efforts of local and voluntary services to effect reestablishment.
Yet with this report before them now for two years, the government have not yet begun even to touch this problem of the transient worker.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Mr.  W. F. IOJHL@Jasper-Edson: Mr. Speaker, so much has already been said about the sorrowful plight of the unemployed and so many pertinent statistics have already been ' compiled and put on Hansard that I think any additional remarks of mine along that line would be entirely superfluous at this time. I do feel, however, that all thinking people must by this time concede that there is absolutely no reason or excuse for present conditions in a country so naturally wealthy as this dominion. I think everyone must concede that the condition to-day of such a large section of our unemployed and of those who are living on subsistence incomes constitutes one of the saddest reflections on modem government. I am quite satisfied that if proper methods were pursued in Canada our system could provide for every adult citizen an income of at least one thousand dollars' worth of consumable goods a year, and I do not think it requires any stretch of imagination to concede that.
I am not going to enter into the controversy that is usually carried on between Liberals and Conservatives as to what adjustments in tariff and trade are necessary to bring about a proper relationship. I think the history of the last seventy years in Canada indicates to us that the remedy for our troubles does not lie in the realm of tariff and trade adjustments. Surely to goodness if there is an ideal arrangement to be made in that field the Liberals and Conservatives would have found it at some period during the last seventy years of our history.
The hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) sarcastically referred to the proposals of the Social Credit party for remedying present conditions. He rather discounted the suggestion that money tickets were necessary to the solution of the problem, and if we may judge from remarks and speeches that are made from time to time in the house a great number of members discount the fact that money tickets are an essential factor in solving our problems. Surely everyone who has made the slightest study of economics must realize that in this highly complex age, an age in which the systems of production and distribution are extremely complicated, we can do nothing without a medium of exchange. Surely it is obvious to anyone that, unless we employ a medium of exchange, in the first place we cannot produce the goods, in the second place that we cannot distribute them when they are produced, and finally that we cannot consume them. Therefore there is a definite relationship between the money tickets required and the goods which should be distributed, and to suggest that money tickets have no relationship to
economic policies or to the production and distribution of goods is idle.
I should like to say a few words on the cause of our unemployment situation. Before we can intelligently prescribe a proper remedy for our present conditions we must first analyse the situation. Unemployment is not a cause; it is a result. It is the natural consequence of the technological advancements of our modern age. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) this afternoon did not, I think, place sufficient emphasis on one of the factors, in my opinion the major factor, contributing towards unemployment not only in Canada but in every country in the world, and that is the substitution of mechanical for human energy. I have here a few statistics which I have gathered in my reading, showing the extent to which human labour has been displaced by solar energy and power machinery, and indicating that it is physically impossible to employ all the unemployed in industry.
One of the most remarkable substitutes for human energy is the development of the production of electrical energy. Back in 1832 a water turbine produced only fifty horse power; in 1891, at Niagara, each electrical unit had a capacity of 5,000 horse power; to-day, we are informed, units are produced which have a capacity of 300,000 horse power, and we are also informed that a unit with
1.000.	000 horse-power capacity could be built. Translated into human energy, a unit of
1.000.	000 horse power capacity would provide the equivalent of the labour of 10,000,000 men for an eight hour day, or of 30,000,000 men if it were on a twenty-four hour basis. According to the Canada Year Book, the available water power of Canada is 34,000,000 horse power; the developed horse power is, I believe, about one-fourth of that, or around eight millions. If this 34,000,000 available horse power were developed we should have the equivalent of ten times that quantity if translated into man power, or an average of thirty-four mechanical slaves for every man, woman and child in the dominion. In other words, the substitution of electrical energy for human energy has increased to such an extent that to-day our mechanical man power is forty or fifty times as great as it was before electrical energy was discovered.
In his address on his resolution, the minister suggested that it was the duty of industry to employ idle labour. I do not agree with him, but I am not going to discuss that at the moment. The point which I wish to establish is that, to begin with, it is mathematically impossible for industry to absorb the unemployed to an extent that they would have sufficient wages to buy back the pro-
27SO	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
ducts of industry; that is, provided they are going to take advantage of power machinery as we have it to-day. And surely we are going to do that, we are not going to tolerate retrogression rather than progression.
I have here a few statistics with regard to the extent to which in certain industries human labour has been reduced. In the days of Athens and Rome one miller could grind from one to one and a half barrels of flour a day. We are informed that in Minneapolis a machine in one mill has a capacity of 30,000 barrels a day. In 1899, the number of plants was 9,500; in 1929, it was 11,500. In 1899, 32,200 mills ground .471,000,000 bushels of wheat; in 1929, 26,400 mills ground 546,000,000 bushels. There was a decrease in the number of mills and an increase in the number of bushels ground. All these figures, by the way, relate to industry in the United States, but the same thing holds good of industries in Canada, and the same effects would be produced if an equivalent amount of machinery were installed.
In the shoe-making industry, we are informed, in Roman days one man produced a pair of shoes in five and a half days; to-day, with the aid of power machinery, one man in the same time can produce seventy pairs of shoes. The shoe-production capacity of the United States is 900,000,000 pairs a year.
The same conditions apply in the brickmaking industry. For 5,000 years the highest production per individual was 450 bricks a day; to-day one machine can produce 400,000 bricks a day. The same statisticians inform us it is estimated that one hundred men in five plants situated strategically throughout the United States could supply the total brick requirements of the whole of that country.
Let me give a few similar facts with regard to the steel and iron industry. In 1900, it required seventy man-hours to produce one ton of steel; in 1929, the same amount could be produced in thirteen man-hours. The same trend is evident with respect to pig-iron. In 1879, 73-7 tons per man per year were produced; by 1929 the output per man had been raised to 1,710 tons per man per year.
In the automobile industry it required, in 1904, 1,291 man-hours to produce an automobile; in 1919, 313 man-hours; in 1929, only 92 man-hours.
We have also a few interesting figures with regard to agriculture. By the spade method one man can dig one-eighth of an acre in twelve hours; so that ninety-six man-hours are required to dig one acre. With a twenty-horse hitch and six fourteen-inch steel-bottom ploughs twelve to fifteen acres a day can be ploughed, representing -83 to -67 man-hours an

acre, a reduction from 96 hours to -67; and to-day, with a tractor drawing a 60-disc plough the number of man-hours per acre is reduced to -088.
In the meat-packing industry the number of man-hours per 1,000 pounds of meat production has been reduced from 25-56 to 17-86.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member mentioned the number of pairs of shoes that can be produced in a day. Has he the price, in both instances?


Mr. KUHL:: The price of the shoes?


William Henry Golding: Yes.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: No, I have not that here. It is not relevant, anyway, to the point I am making.


William Henry Golding: I know, but I thought the hon. member might have that.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: No, I have not the prices here. The point I am trying to make by means of these statistics is that our unemployment is largely a result of the substitution of power machinery for human energy.
In the face of these facts I fail to understand how the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) can suggest that it is the obligation and the duty of the industrialists of Canada or of any other country to absorb idle labour. It is a mathematical impossibility, and furthermore I do not think it is the proper objective. I believe that the proper and common sense objective of an economic system is to provide the maximum amount of goods with the minimum of trouble. We have therefore on our hands to-day leisure which is called unemployment. It is misnamed when it is called unemployment; it is leisure, and the real problem we have to deal with is the proper distribution of this leisure. As it works out to-day, those who have this leisure, for which people are not paid, and which, therefore, is not leisure proper, have not the training or the education which would give them the ability to appreciate their leisure time. On the other hand, those who are employed in industry are obliged to work so hard and to put forth so much effort that they are unable to appreciate the little leisure that they have over and above their hours of labour. So that the first problem is properly to distribute this leisure, and the other is to provide security for those who have been displaced by machinery, without reducing the standard of living of those employed.
I believe that the reason we do not make progress in adopting a proper solution of this problem is that we build up arguments on false premises. It is assumed by most economists to-day that industry is self-liquidat-

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
ing, that each industry in the course of the production of its goods pays out in that production an amount of income equivalent to the prices of the goods produced. That is a false premise, and an analysis of the statistics will readily indicate that this is so. I have here a chart given in the Canada Year Book of 1939 at page 123. It gives statistics for fifteen leading industries in the dominion. It shows salaries and wages paid out in the production of goods and gives the costs of materials and the gross value of the products, which, I presume, is the selling price of the articles. The total gross value of these products of fifteen leading industries is $1,507,580,073. All payments made in these industries in Canada, to labour in the form of salaries and wages, and payments for raw material for processing and so on, total $1,165-, 110,975. Therefore there is a difference of $342,469,098 between total payments made and the prices of the goods. That is the difference between total prices and total income.
It should be apparent to anyone that it is impossible to buy $2 worth of consumable goods with $1. In this instance the statistics indicate that if the people are expected to buy the goods at the prices at which they are offered for sale, they are short $342,000,000 plus. That is the deduction I draw from the figures I have given. I do not know of any other deduction that can be drawn from them, and as has been pointed out from time to time, particularly by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), that situation is due in the first place to the substitution of power machinery for human labour, second, to reinvestment from savings, and, third, to other charges the equivalent of which is not created as purchasing power.
If the people who are entitled to the goods are to receive them they will never receive them through wages. As I have already indicated from the statistics quoted, it is mathematically impossible to absorb the unemployed in industry; consequently the difference between total prices and total income must be distributed to all the people in an equitable manner. The difference between total prices and total income exists as prices only. It is not income; it is not money that exists in the pockets of people; it is merely the price written on goods, the equivalent of which does not exist as money. And unless the equivalent is created in money or tickets or whatever you wish to call it and issued to consumers in various necessary ways, I fail to see how we can distribute to the people of Canada the goods which we produce in Canada. The same applies to every other country.
I realize that we cannot overnight bring about an entirely new system and that we must necessarily pass through a transition period. I quite agree with the hon. member for Greenwood that in this period there are many necessary public works that could be done until the whole economic system is adjusted to function smoothly.
The hon. member for Greenwood put forth a number of suggestions which -are worth while and certainly necessary; but the one thing that he failed to tell us, and it is the one thing which all hon. members who make such proposals always fail to tell us, is how these projects are to be financed. They continually suggest to us social crediters that our proposal of new money is not sound. At the same time they do not offer any suggestion as to how the necessary money can be raised except by increasing debt or taxation. I should like to know how the Conservatives, if they were in power, would finance such a program. It is a wonderful program; I agree that many of these things should be done; they should have been done a long time ago. The Liberals should be doing them now, but they are hamstrung in the same way as the Conservatives would be; under the present system they have only one source of money-either taxation or borrowing. Apart from the social credit proposals no other method is suggested by which the balancing of consumption with production can be accomplished. If there is any other way we should like to hear of it.


John Horne Blackmore: There is no doubt about that. The more hon. members come to know of our proposals, the more they will see it.


Mr. ROWE (Athabaska):: All is wrong,
but you cannot put it right; many problems but no solution.


John Horne Blackmore: You have no solution but taxation.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: These suggestions of ours
could be elaborated further, but I do not think it necessary at the present moment. Every problem that arises in this house, it makes no difference what it is, always resolves itself finally into a question of finance: Where is the money to come from? One does not need to be a parliamentarian or university graduate to suggest public works, reforestation or any of the proposals which have been made; any everyday school boy could do the same thing. The question which the public wants answered and which we want answered is how these projects are going to be financed. The answer to that question should be forthcoming. It is a simple matter
2782	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
to make these suggestions, but how are they going to be financed outside of parliament assuming and exercising its prerogative so as to make financially possible what is physically possible? I know of no other way by which this can be financed.


John Horne Blackmore: Nor does anyone else.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: And as far as a long range
policy and. a permanent solution of the question of unemployment are concerned, I am satisfied that if the Conservatives or the Liberals were to have another fifty years of office, under the present financial policy they would be further away from a solution than they are to-day. Without a change in monetary policy the problem is insoluble and will proceed from bad to worse.
I am not going to discuss further at this time the application of social credit principles to adjust the situation, but will conclude simply by emphasizing once more that it is a problem of finance and nothing else, and until the present or another government devise a new scheme of financing, adopt a new financial policy, the problem cannot be solved, and consumption can never be equated with production.


Thomas Langton Church: The
motion of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress and for such purpose to authorize the execution of undertakings in the general interest of Canada and requisite for the purposes of the act, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, and also to provide financial assistance to the provinces by way of loan, advance or guarantee, out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, and for the appointment of necessary officers, clerks and employees.
That resolution has been before the house for three or four sessions. The agreements with the provinces are for some provinces but not for others; there is no equality of treatment. The British North America Act calls for equality of treatment in such matters, but for some bankrupt provinces the total burden of relief is borne by the high court of parliament here and these provinces do not contribute anything. In other provinces some municipalities can get all kinds of municipal improvements, while in others they can get nothing. Ontario has not taken full value of what it should get here because the provincial government is not altogether in accord with the present government at Ottawa on this question.
When the present government came into office after the last election all the billboards in the country were covered with abuse of the [Mr. Khul.3
government of the day: "Beat Bennett and bad times, end unemployment, vote Liberal." The present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) told the house before the election in 1930 that Conservative provinces would not get one five-cent piece for unemployment. Between 1926 and 1930 I asked the government nine or ten questions about unemployment, and the Minister of Labour of that day replied that the federal authorities had nothing to do with unemployment, it is a matter for the provinces and the municipalities. In 1935, in the first session of this parliament, the present Prime Minister was asked what he would do to cure unemployment, and he said he would appoint a royal commission. A royal commission was appointed; the commission reported, and according to some of the Prime Minister's own following the report was valueless, so much so that the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) took the report and threw it on the floor in the presence of this house, and it has proved valueless in practice. I may say that on this particular question the church's one foundation-I am not a member of the continuing Presbyterian church and for that reason I cannot speak longer than forty minutes; but we read in the Scriptures, "Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher, all is vanity." "Humbug of humbugs," say the unemployed, "all is humbug," with the many commissions who do nothing for unemployment.
As far as the unemployed are concerned, this parliament is not doing its duty with any leadership, or cure, or action. With the great natural resources which this country has, the magnificent forests and abundance of raw materials and products of every kind, there should be no one out of work. In the present session of parliament I introduced a resolution. which was not reached. The resolution stated the case of the municipalities for help. It said:
That, in the opinion of this house, in view of the present social and economic conditions of this country, including unemployment and unemployment relief, the time has come for the government to consider assuming the total cost of it all, including that of hospitalization, as well as providing more adequate grants for education and public health for the people, and that the federal authority should deal directly with the larger municipalities on municipal relief works and relief unemployment, instead of as at present by way of the provinces, notwithstanding the provisions of any law. statute, usage or custom to the contrary.
In my opinion the municipalities are not getting fair treatment. This parliament makes the immigration laws, the financial laws, the laws regulating trade and commerce; it can make treaties of all kinds with a foreign

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
country and do a great deal to injure employment. The government of the day saw fit to change the policy adhered to by the Liberal party from 1921 to 1930, which was that they had nothing to do with unemployment, it was a matter for the provinces. When the depression came and the industrial workers were out of work and the farmers could not get back their costs of production, this government came along and said "We will do something," and they appointed a royal commission and wasted two years. This parliament has appropriated the revenues of the municipalities in the way of income tax. The income tax enabled the municipalities to carry on the services in connection with relief, hospitals, education and so on. Then this parliament came along and invaded what had been the exclusive field of the municipalities since confederation, and imposed a duplicate tax and in the case of some provinces a triplicate tax, with the result that when the depression came along and all these people went on relief, the municipalities had not the money to carry on, deprived as they were of their revenues. Now agreements are made with the provinces, and I hope that under the present agreements the minister will earmark this money, because in some of the provinces they have been making deductions for costs and other reasons, and the total federal grant is not passed on.
I do not wish to criticize Quebec, because the industrial workers of that province are suffering acutely, but I do say that if Quebec is able, under this act, to have money advanced by that province for all kinds of municipal public works, the same thing should be done in Ontario, British Columbia and the mari-times. One example is the Montreal terminal, for which $12,500,000 was voted. This work was said to be mainly for unemployment relief, but this government did not deal directly with the province at all; they dealt with the city; that work was commenced, and neither the province nor the city gave anything. I see no reason why that principle should not be extended to the other large municipalities throughout the country.
With regard to unemployment insurance, that should be divisible between the employables and the unemployables. In 1909 they had unemployment insurance in Great Britain, and it was part of the Liberal platform in Canada in 1919, but we do not have it yet. We were told a month ago that we would have to await the report of the Rowell commission. Dear knows when that report will come in, if it ever does; and then probably it will be put in the archives. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) did not pay much attention to the Rowell report, or even
wait for it. When it is a case of crop and farm insurance versus humans, what does the minister do? A month or more ago this house adopted a resolution proposed by one of the government members for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the question of crop insurance. But the Minister of Agriculture introduces a resolution, on which he speaks from 3.15 to 5.30 o'clock on the Wednesday afternoon of last week in order that no one can reply, notwithstanding the fact that this house decided that a committee should be appointed to deal with this very question. You see how quickly the present administration can side-step the rule of anticipation and how quickly they can formulate government policy. They are going to bring about crop insurance in the twinkling of an eye, or certainly before this parliament prorogues, but unemployment insurance can wait. How have they dealt with the question of unemployment among the industrial workers in our large cities and towns, who have been driven to the wall? They get none of these prairie hand-outs, these many kinds of subventions, bonuses and subsidies from the party now in power, who are free traders on the prairies in regard to grain. How do they feel about unemployment insurance? Have we got it? No, although they have had it in Great Britain for two decades.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we could have unemployment insurance right now under clause 1 of section 91 of the British North America Act. Under that section this parliament can make any grants of money it sees fit to make out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada in regard to public debt and property. That was the way in which they voted money for technical education, pensions and other services. So, if only the government would do the same in regard to unemployment insurance, they would relieve a great deal of suffering throughout the country.
In regard to a public works program, the committee on education and labour of the United States senate held a hearing some twelve years ago, under the chairmanship of the late Senator Couzens, during which they investigated conditions the world over in regard to seasonal unemployment, technological unemployment growing out of the use of machinery, casual unemployment and so on. They dealt with the question of the employables and those permanently unemployed. Mr. Daniel Willard, president of the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, in giving evidence, had this to say:
It is a dangerous thing to have a large number of unemployed men and women

dangerous to society as a whole-dangerous to the individuals who constitute society. When men who are willing and able to work and want
2784	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
to work are unable to obtain work, we need not be surprised if they steal before they starve. Certainly I do not approve of stealing, but if I bad to make the choice between stealing and starving, I would surely not choose to starve-and in that respect I do not think I am much unlike the average individual.
If Canada had appointed a committee fifteen years ago to go into the question of unemployment we would have been ready when the depression came along and we would have had a survey and register ready to act on. In comparing this United States report with that of the Purvis commission, I find that both deal with the questions of youth and unemployment insurance, and many of the findings of our 1937 commission are the same. I am sorry that under the youth program little or nothing has been done, nor is anything being done to take care of the senior employees who have been driven to the wall. There are industries in this country that will not give employment to any man over forty-five years of age. These senior employees should be provided for. So I say not only should provision be made for youth- and dear knows we need some provision of this kind-but in addition we should not have the law of the jungle or the survival of the fittest apply to our older men in connection with employment, because that is what it amounts to. There should be equality of treatment for the senior employees as well as for youth, and with leadership all would be taken care of.
We are having a great deal of trouble in the city of Toronto as a result of the depression. To-day we have practically the confiscation of property for non-payment of taxes.
On motion of Mr. Church the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 14, 1939


William Henry Golding: That the petition of Muriel Suckling Brown, presented on April 5, praying for the passing of an act to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendation as may be deemed advisable.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, there have been quite a number of these petitions for private bills which the clerk of petitions has reported against receiving on the ground that under the rules of the house they have been received too late, yet in the most casual way, and without notice, motions are made to refer them to the committee on standing orders. My own opinion is that persons who are desirous of securing a dissolution of marriage-and nearly all the bills which have been so favoured are for that purpose-know the rules of the house and should abide by them, and I cannot see why special consideration should be extended to them. As a matter of fact it has been considered all down through the years a most unusual thing to receive petitions for private bills after the time for receiving them has expired; it has been a privilege usually accorded only when there were very strong and special reasons for so doing. But of late a number of these petitions have been received in the most casual way after the time limit has expired, and personally I want to register my objection to this practice.


Ernest Lapointe: I strongly endorse and support what the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) has just said.


Walter Edward Foster: The motion can be made only with the unanimous consent of the house. Notice not having been given, I think that in the absence of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton) the motion should stand.
Motion stands.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the course of his speech the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) made the startling assertion that thousands of single transients had died as a result of exposure, illness, actual starvation or lack of care. His exact statement as appearing in Hansard is as follows:
Single transients to the number of thousands upon thousands beg here and there in an effort to keep body and soul together, and thousands have died as a result of exposure, illness, actual starvation or lack of care.
As might have been expected, this quotation has caught the headlines of newspapers and has been carried to all parts of the country by press reports. On my responsibility as Minister of Labour I denied absolutely the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
truth of this statement when made, but the hon. member for Greenwood refused to withdraw and placed me in the unusual position of disproving an assertion which he on his part was unable or unwiUing to confirm, and in support of which he did not produce a word of evidence.
When the house rose at six o'clock I gave instructions to have an inquiry sent immediately to all provinces in order to obtain accurate information on the point raised by the member for Greenwood. The message, I might say, was sent officially by the commissioner of unemployment relief to the appropriate heads of relief departments in the various provinces. The message sent by the commissioner of relief here was in the following terms:
Please wire rush collect if you know of any cases of death due to starvation or exposure in your province during past four years. Would appreciate answer in respect to categories viz those on relief and transients.
H. Hereford, Department of Labour.
It will be noticed that this inquiry goes beyond the class mentioned fey my hon. friend. His reference was to transients alone. I am going to place upon Hansard the replies received thus far from seven provinces.
The first is from Ontario:
Re telegram: know of no cases of death due to starvation or exposure of unemployed residents or transients in Ontario.
That is signed by S. J. Gadsby, accountant of the relief branch, acting in the absence of the deputy minister of that department.
From Saskatchewan:
No deaths have occurred among those on relief or transients from starvation and no deaths have resulted from exposure or lack of clothing among those on relief or transients. Only deaths from exposure are those caught in severe blizzards. In no case has a death resulted from refusal of relief authorities to provide shelter.
W. W. Dawson, Director of Relief.
An hon. MEMBER:: How does he know that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This is from New Brunswick :
Department has no knowledge of any deaths of transients or those on relief caused by starvation or exposure. This is confirmed by department of health, who have a complete record of deaths, as well as by R.C.M.P.. who investigate all violent or accidental deaths.
A. W. Barbour,
Deputy Minister of Public Works.
Mr. Barbour is also the administrator of relief. From Manitoba:
There_ have been no cases of death due to malnutrition, starvation or exposure attribu-

table to lack of sufficiency, inavailability or amount of relief in Manitoba during last four fears. There have been several deaths due to exhaustion and exposure attributable to various causes other than lack of relief sufficiency, such as lost hunters, blizzards, riding freight trains, drinking. Detailed records of coroners' investigations can be obtained and sent you if desired.
A. MacNamara.
Mr. MacNamara is the deputy minister of labour of that province. From Nova Scotia:
Replying your wire, cannot find any record of death due to starvation in Nova Scotia at any time; certainly none during past four fears. May have been deaths resulting from exposure, but if so, not recorded here.
R. H. Mackay.
Mr. Mackay is deputy minister of labour of that province. From British Columbia:
Our officials cannot recollect any cases of death due to starvation or exposure of relief o-r transient cases during past four years.
E. W. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith is administrator of the unemployment relief branch of the provincial department of labour. From Alberta:
Re telegram thirteenth. In Alberta no deaths of those on relief due to starvation or exposure for last four years or previously. Medical reports from cities and industrial centres show families of relief recipients much more healthy than families of wealthy parents. Christmas issue of fifty cents per capita was only spent in four cases on necessary food. All the remainder expended extravagantly. Persons making such statements should be made produce evidence or action taken to prevent such prevarication in the future.
A. A. Mackenzie,
Commissioner relief and public welfare.
Messages have yet to be received from Quebec and Prince Edward Island. I have no reason to believe that they will disclose any different situation in those provinces. When the answers are received I shall place them before this house.
I wish only to say this in conclusion. It is impossible to condemn too strongly an irresponsible statement of this kind under existing conditions of public tension. I emphasize this especially because the hon. member for Greenwood, in the same speech, referred to the urgent need of nation-wide cooperation in order to maintain public confidence in these difficult times.


Denton Massey: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. GRAY:: We listened for five hours!


Denton Massey: I am glad to hear that the hon. member listened.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. member is not in order.
2786	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Denton Massey: If I may be permitted the same privilege that I accorded the minister, I shall be glad to make a statement at this time.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


Ernest Lapointe: The
minister was polite.


Denton Massey: The minister said yesterday in this house-


An hon. MEMBER:: Withdraw.


Denton Massey: I am quite capable of taking care of the situation without any suggestion from hon. members opposite. I have not at my command the same machinery as has the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), who receives replies from deputy ministers-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. There is nothing before the chair, so I do not see why the hon. member should now rise to answer.


Denton Massey: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker: the minister has given what he alleges to be an answer to a statement which I made yesterday in this house. I am rising at this point to a question of privilege to answer what the minister has just said. I have heard nothing from the minister this afternoon which makes me wish' to withdraw in any way, shape or form the statement I made yesterday. I am sure if the minister will give his consideration to the replies which he has received he will realize that they come from sources which have absolutely no right to make such a statement as has been made, in view of the fact that every hon. member, including the minister himself, knows that there have been deaths in this country due to malnutrition. It is utter nonsense that such statements as he has read should be made.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Denton Massey: Although not having the same machinery at my command as the minister has, I shall be quite prepared to make my statement to the house at the earliest possible opportunity, in substantiation of the statement I made yesterday.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS- UNDERTAKINGS IN GENERAL INTEREST AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 13, consideration of the motion of Hon. Norman McL. Rogers (Minister of Labour) that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of un-

employment and agricultural distress and for such purpose to authorize the execution of undertakings in the genera] interest of Canada and requisite for the purposes of the act, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, and also to provide financial assistance to the provinces by way of loan, advance or guarantee, out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, and for the appointment of necessary officers, clerks and employees.
Thomas Langton Church: I may say, having been in municipal life and on public bodies and boards of health and hospital boards for a great many years, that as regards the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), while I cannot speak as to the numbers involved, I agree as to the principle he expressed in connection with long-continued unemployment and its ruinous effect on public health and its wastage, because the way things are to-day an unemployed man who has a wife and family to keep, and perhaps others dependent upon him, might almost as well lose his life as lose his job, his only security-that is the way things are to-day, as I read the returns of the boards of health. In fact the trades and labour council of Toronto, in presenting a resolution the other day to the board of control, dealt with this matter of health in relation to unemployment and the damage resulting from it, in dooming thousands to a life of permanent ill health. I know the matter was commented upon; I have here the reports of the board of health meeting and other health reports, but I do not wish to read them now because I have only another thirty minutes in which to speak. As I said last night, I am not a continuing Presbyterian, therefore I am limited to forty minutes.
I should be sorry to see this made a party question. It has never been so treated by me, because I believe that the care and welfare of our people and the health and peace of our citizens constitute the first duty of a government. We have been asssembled here some sixty-four or sixty-five days, and have appointed committees of all kinds, but in my opinion the most important which we could appoint would be a labour or an employment committee. We have many committees and they are not functioning the way they should. Let me say that this country does not belong alone to those who at present inhabit it. It is an inheritance from the past, a possession for the present, and a trust for the future. After all is said and done, the wealth of Canada is not comprised solely in our magnificent natural resources, our raw materials, our chain of great lakes, our splendid harbours, the products of the sea, the soil, the forest and the mine, our great transportation system by land and sea and

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
in the air. There is a more glorious treasure than that in the character of our people and in maintaining their morale. That is what is being destroyed to-day by this canker of unemployment in the state and the failure of the government to do anything on practical lines to remedy it. The returns brought down by the minister deal largely with the past. They speak of the present to some extent, but so far as the future is concerned, I can find little or nothing in them to offer us any encouragement except a small-sized youth training program. It seems there are two things that the government have been unable to do. They have been unable to look after the youth problem, and they have not taken care of the senior citizens of the country who have borne the heat of the day in the matter of unemployment.
It strikes me that this country is in need of mathematicians who can do some counting up to ten millions, consecutively, of our people, because we have never been able to find out exactly what the population of the country is. We have never had an, exact estimate as a result of any decennial census. The decennial census covers a house to house canvas in urban and rural Canada, but the work is carried out in a deficient sort of way.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I must call the attention of hon. members to the fact that there is too much noise in the chamber.


Thomas Langton Church: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for drawing attention to the fact. This is one of the most important questions before the house. I wonder what those hon. gentlemen who are carrying on conversations, who are talking to their neighbours, are going to tell the people when they get back to their constituencies of what jobs we have found in Canada for Canadians. What are they going to tell the people are the concrete views of 245 members of parliament in regard to the all-important question of getting jobs for those who are out of work? The greatest problem which faces Canada to-day is that of providing work for unemployed Canadians, but what have we been doing here? May I ask the attention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley)? This matter concerns his department; as head of that department he has something to do with it. I should like also to get the attention of some of the other ossified conservatives sitting on government front benches-gentlemen who are opposed to adopting practical measures for the solution of the problem. They are by the commission route divesting the House of Commons of its rights, privileges and prerogatives. Instead of helping parliament to discharge its responsibilities, the government are appointing numerous commissions. There are so many officials and employees in connection with all these-commissions that if they lined up two abreast the line would reach from here to Lansdowne park. That is the object and reason for appointing these commissions, to prevent any actions being taken here, and they do this admirably. The government appointed the Purvis commission and that body brought in a report, which was not acted on except in a small way. One hon. gentleman flung the report on the floor, and in my opinion that is the proper place for it, the wastepaper basket, because it was nothing but a copy of some of the findings of the Couzens report submitted to the United States senate fifteen years ago. The Purvis report, on its presentation, was referred to another Doomsday commission, the Rowell commission, which is still on its rounds and still not doing anything.
This government seem to think they can relieve unemployment by adopting a lot of trade pacts, but as far as I can see these trade agreements simply aggravate the situation. They create unemployment instead of providing work, because they are destroying our own markets for our own Canadian products and our own work for our own workmen, and depriving Canadian workmen of employment at home. Is it any wonder there is unemployment in our industrial centres? No business man is going to extend his activities so long as we have tariff tinkering and numerous trade pacts, with consequent instability in industry and commerce, and widespread unemployment.
One important matter that calls for the consideration of parliament at the present time, in view of the emergency that exists in the world to-day, is the defence problem. After all, as Adam Smith said, security is better than opulence. I suggest therefore that it would be better to deal with the government's program for the expenditure of 863,000,000 next Monday or at once, and pass that at any rate. It would provide some immediate employment, and the time spent in the discussion of the matters involved in that program would not be wasted, because we may be actually face to face with the enemy at any moment. Who can tell? May first is only two weeks off.
The heavy burdens of relief, hospitalization and other things of that sort are hampering the business man to-day and threatening the municipal institutions of the provinces. The situation is so highly unsatisfactory that no one wants to own real estate. Real estate at the present time is groaning under an incubus of heavy taxation in consequence of a state of

Un'employment and Agricultural Distress
over-taxation and over-government in the country, with tens of thousands of Canadians out of work through no fault of the municipalities of Canada. This widespread unemployment throughout the land is having its effect on property owners and the federal burdens imposed wrongly on cities and towns. Confiscation of property is at times being carried out extensively and property owners are reeling under high mortgage and interest rates and other heavy charges. And the shark loan companies add to the evil. Yet nothing is being done here by the government to relieve this situation or hold an inquiry into these excessive rates. The municipalities were here all this week and when they asked for bread they were given a stone. Relief to them was denied and deferred, presumably until the Rowell commission's report is received, which will amount to nothing. It has cost, up to January 1, 1939, $357,500, and more would have been accomplished by a round table conference with the provinces.
Canada to-day is threatened from within by unemployment. Indeed, it is threatening the existence of confederation, the British empire, and the party system, because nothing is being done to solve the problem and to deal with the question of distributism. The government is doing nothing to remove the evils of the capitalist system and to provide work for the unemployed. On Febuary 17, 1936, I brought forward a motion dealing with this matter and it was debated from 3.20 in the afternoon until 6 o'clock and again throughout the evening. But, as usual, nothing was done. The motion was as follows:
That in the opinion of this house, Canada should immediately adopt a comprehensive national housing building reconstruction, renovation, slum clearance land settlement and reforestation policy adopted to its circumstances, and also embracing as one of its main features a national policy for youth in relation to education and industry and employment, so as to get people off the dole and back to remunerative employment.
And further, that this house is also of the opinion that in any such national reconstruction policy a lower rate structure for bank mortgage and insurance loans is an immediate necessity. Such a reconstruction policy to also embrace protection for industrial workers in urban and suburban areas from forfeiture on the same principle as farmers and fishermen are now' afforded by existing legislation.
So far as Toronto is concerned, little or nothing is being done there to relieve the overburdened taxpayers, those who contribute over 90 millions of revenue to this government, or to help them. The work that is being done in connection with the Island and Malton airports, both construction and maintenance, is being borne by Toronto, whereas in other places, Canada pays for it; and so fMr. Church.)
far as post office facilities are concerned, although a very large percentage of the postal revenue, over seven millions, comes from that city, we cannot get a proper new mail order building. On March 13, 1939, I received from the Postmaster General (Mr. McLarty), in answer to a letter I had written him regarding the new Toronto post office building at Fleet and Bay streets, a communication in which he informed me that the plans had been prepared and the Department of Public Works advised that they expected that tenders would be asked for that week.
' We are getting little or no assistance from the dominion government. I believe in the principle of confederation of each for all and all for each, but I do not want to see Ontario and Toronto made the goat of confederation for taxation purposes and not getting anything in return; and if the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act does not make satisfactory provision for Ontario, I suggest that the sooner it is amended by the Minister of Finance to take care of the situation in that province, the better it will be for all concerned. Where a province fails to take advantage of this act the federal government should take steps to see that equality of treatment is maintained throughout the country and thus Toronto would get aid for its trunk sewer. Many cities and towns in Ontario have made applications for assistance under this act but they are getting nothing because Ottawa and Queen's Park cannot agree. I have a return showing what has been done in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island under this act but there is not a cent for the city of Toronto.
The minister has announced that if the province of Ontario will agree to a dollar for dollar payment on the Toronto sewage disposal plant lie will take action. In this connection I should like to read the following item from the Toronto Telegram of Thursday, April 13, from the reply of the Ontario legislature to the proposal of the federal Minister of Labour.
Premier Mitchell Hepburn angrily rejected to-day the proposal of Hon. Norman Rogers that the two governments should contribute "dollar for dollar" for the cost of Toronto's new sewage disposal plant. The Ontario premier branded the federal labour minister's offer as "a barefaced attempt to bribe the voters of Toronto on the eve of an election."
"If he thinks he can get us into such a deal -into competitive spending-just to bolster his dying government he has another think coming," the premier declared.
"Why didn't Mr. Rogers make such generous offers long ago, long before an election was in sight? Both Toronto and Ontario have been paying far more than their fair share of relief

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
costs because Mr. Rogers callously refused enough assistance. Now he thinks he can bribe the city on the eve of an election. Such a barefaced attempt is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Toronto."
That is the opinion of the premier of the province, and the provincial leader of the opposition, Colonel Drew, the other day spoke in much the same strain about Ontario and the need of helping real estate, of overgovernment, and of Ontario being made the goat in the matter of taxation and receiving practically nothing from the federal power in return for all the federal taxes it pays. I have some protests here from the building trades unions and officers of the stone industry, which I have not had time to read yet, concerning the harm done to the construction industries if this post office building is not proceeded with, because it would mean work for two or three thousand men. The delay in building for postal reasons cannot last much longer because the province needs this post office, and the Post Office Department needs that public utility there, where nearly thirty per cent of the postal revenues come from, for the efficiency of the sendee.
I asked for a report about the Alien Labour Act and unemployment in Canada, but I find the departments are utterly helpless to regulate it. The question I asked was in regard to the enforcement of the Alien Labour Act and the number of aliens who have been admitted under the said act in 1937, 1938 and 1939. The justice department in the return say they have no information and they start to plead the rules of the house, some of which are more than a hundred years old. They say that question number two appears to relate to a matter of policy. The Department of Mines and Resources say:
This department is not aware that any department of the dominion government is charged with the enforcement of the Alien Labour Act.
Anyone seems to be able to come here and without taking out naturalization papers take employment away from our own citizens. Did you ever hear of such an absurd way of enforcement? As far as immigration is concerned they have no information. Immigrants are admitted to Canada from many alien places under the Immigration Act and they get jobs and remain un-naturalized. The non-enforcement of that act has led to a great deal of unemployment in the industrial cities of Ontario and Quebec.
One of the most important things the minister has overlooked is the export of brains from this country. Canada should utilize the talents of its youth as one of its greatest natural resources. I referred to this two or three years ago in connection with the mining
estimates; the thousands in the universities, high schools and the technical schools could go into the north country during the summer and learn a great deal about our natural resources in mines and minerals, and prospect and help develop our great natural resources.
What is more distressing or more pathetic than to see men willing and able to work, at the peak of their physical and mental capacity, unable to get employment because of the governing policy of industry which discourages the employment of middle-aged men, over forty-five years of age. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has said that we are on the eve of an election. Of course we are. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) tells the municipalities that nothing can be done about unemployment relief until the Rowell commission presents its report. When the commission does present it, it will be sent to the archives and that will be the last heard of it. It will be committed to the ground of the archives, earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; that will be the last we shall hear of this famous report. They have already buried the Purvis report. But on the other side of the ledger what do we find? We had the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), when a motion was adopted appointing a committee to deal with crop insurance, rising in his place with a resolution and a bill to provide for the very crop insurance, before the committee met at all. That is the way in which we deal with crops, material things, but how do w7e deal with humans? In England they have had unemployment insurance since 1909; it was part of the Liberal platform at the Ottawa convention in 1919, yet we have not got it to-day. If we had, unemployment would have been reduced.
In January of last year there was a byelection in Montreal, and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) on January 5, 1938, must be mind-readers; for they told the electors that the Canadian National station in Montreal would be gone on with, notwithstanding the duplication it involves. Nothing more was heard until December 5, 1938, eleven months later, when the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways approved the project, an order in council, P.C. 746, was passed, and in March of this year work was begun. Up to December 31, 1938, they had spent $16,651,000, and since then, $12,862,343, or a total of $29,513,343, over the head of parliament and without regard to the coordination of the railways, and now it is proposed to spend a further $12,500,000 for a terminal that is not needed.
2790	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
What has become of cooperation between the railways? Where does the taxpayer stand while all this wasteful expenditure goes on over the heads of parliament and the railway board?
In the city of Toronto a home for transient unemployed was started by the Reverend John Frank. A man like him should be congratulated upon what he has done for the unemployed. I have here a picture taken in the parish house of Holy Trinity church, Toronto, last Christmas week showing the unemployed sleeping on the floor where they had been for several weeks. To-day many of these men are in the new John Frank home and going on a John Frank farm, and others are in the coliseum. I have not time to read the letter or what has been said in reference to it. A couple of Sundays ago these men marched to St. Paul's Anglican church, and Reverend Doctor Sclater then declared that it was a surprise to him when he first came to Canada to learn that in this country the one place where a man could be sure of getting food and a bed was the gaol. And Sir William Mulock said:
I do not know the solution to the problem, but what an unspeakable condition it is when our fellow citizens must go into the ice and cold to-night with no homes and through no fault of their own.
Yet literally nothing is done. This week there has been a meeting here in Ottawa of the Canadian mayors, and they laid on the door-step of parliament the Whole question of Canada's most important problem, unemployment. Unless this parliament bestirs itself, lack of employment will disrupt confederation and threaten the fate of the British empire. Those who have been engaged in municipal work-and theTe are many in this house-are brought daily face to face with this problem. The loss of a man's job is fatal to him, he loses his whole outlook on life, through fear and lack of security his health is destroyed. These worries prey on him day and night and are a nightmare to him.
I fail to find any actual measure taken by this government to cope with this problem. We have a war in Canada to-day, a war between millions of our fellow men and poverty and starvation. This enemy is just as dangerous-as I said in my remarks on a similar resolution on April 1, 1936-as a foreign foe in war-time. Against a foreign foe we unite, but against our internal foe we are disunited, and do nothing to check or repel this enemy. When the invader is at our gates the country mobilizes its entire resources, its man power, its transportation system, its capital, but in times of depression and unemployment, driving people to the wall, the industrial workers are left without

any protection at all. The workers bear the brunt and we do nothing but sit around and appoint commissions.
Nothing is said in this bill as to the relation between the industrial and the agricultural worker.
The mayors were told yesterday that the federal relief policy stands pending the report of the Rowell commission, who have been all round the world collecting information which was already known and available. This commission should be instructed to hand in its report at once. When it is received it will be consigned to the archives. That is one of the reasons why these commissions are appointed, namely to postpone action by the government of the day on Canada's most vital problems.
The first of May is only two weeks away. So far we have had the ambassadors' cure for unemployment, the professors' cure for unemployment, the Purvis 'commission's cure for unemployment, and the Rowell commission's cure costing $357,000, and the sum total of their efforts has been to befog and becloud the facts and prevent this high court of parliament from dealing with the problem.
One of the main causes of unemployment has been the destruction of the home market. The Liberal policy has been to rely on a multiplicity of trade treaties. This policy has been weighed in the balance and found wanting, and we see the result in the present impossible economic conditions in Canada. The youth of the country coming out of the high schools, whose only fault is that they cannot secure a job, are left to take to the roads all over Canada, or ride the rods in search of employment. The government's policy is one of inertia, coma, inaction, drifting, evasion, postponement, somnambulism and refusal to face the facts or the actual situation.
I have some constructive suggestions to give the government regarding unemployment. In a country with the natural resources and abundant raw material that Canada has, no one should be out of work. Bonuses, subventions, subsidies have been created for coal so that Canada may use more coal from the maritimes, Alberta and Wales. This policy was launched in 1922 on a resolution introduced by me. Notwithstanding the free trade policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, that policy has created employment. In my opinion this policy should be followed only where work is created. The machine has taken the place of labour on the prairies, in Canada's basic industry. It is being utilized more on the prairies in everyday life and in the United States and Canada, and there are no countries in the world where want and waste have

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
been more clearly evidenced or where more unemployment has been caused. We hear a great deal about the building trades. We are doing nothing to get armament contracts. The other day an air force contract for $60,000,000 went to San Francisco. We are not getting food contracts from Britain's rearmament program ; they are going to Australia and the United States. Little or nothing has been done to establish food reservoirs either in Canada or in England for emergency reasons, and at the present time Great Britain has two thousand fewer merchant ships to transport food from Canada and from overseas than she had before the great war. Canada spent over a million dollars on some of her government merchant marine ships, some of which were sold only recently for $50,000. These could have been converted into food vessels and rearmament cargo boats, which would have been of assistance to Great Britain in an emergency, because she imports 90 per cent of her food and 95 per cent of her raw materials. We got nowhere in all this, which would have helped unemployment.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, something should be done to provide work by reopening peacetime shipping plants and converting them into marine buildings for defence purposes, for rearmament and shipbuilding purposes and for storing defence materials.
The Conservative party has been consistent in upholding the doctrine that one of the causes of unemployment has been the destruction of Canada's home markets for the products of its own workmen. The removal of the 3 per cent excise tax, the uncertainty, instability and tariff tinkering, have led business men to reduce staffs and have caused great and widespread unemployment, especially in the industrial cities. The same can be said in regard to the building trades.
I would like to say a word or two in relation to industrial employment, because I want to contrast with the precepts of Christianity the way the industrial workers are used. Contrast our professions with the ruthless competition, the cruelty and vice of present day business and industry. Here personality counts as nothing, the dollar is all supreme. Modern life is machine life, soulless, a life of standardization, high speed production, a highly efficient organization for the making of profit. Everything is done in the mass, and life is made uniform, monotonous and artificial. Dividends are the chief objective; to get dividends human beings are sacrificed. Wages are shockingly low, often below the level of mere subsistence, so that people are forced into immoral and criminal ways of life to eke out a precarious livelihood. The maximum 71492-176
in hours of work is exacted in return for the minimum in wages. Senior employees, whose lifeblood has been drawn from them by long years of faithful service, are in many cases cast out without retiring allowance to make room for younger and cheaper people. It matters not what suffering is entailed for human beings so long as the stockholders are paid their dividends. This amazing selfishness and shortsightedness of the modern industrial system is creating a progressively lower standard of living and a vicious struggle for existence philosophy on the part of the people, increasingly serious social problems which must find their tragic solution either in war or in revolution. In the face of modern methods of competitive living the royal law of love, bear ye one another's burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ, is a hollow mockery in Canada, presumably a Christian country. This is the contradiction of modem life: a truly wonderfid appreciation of the value of the single soul in some quarters, but an absolute denial of any such value in others.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me unemployment is the most important question before the people of Canada to-day. Trade pacts are important only as they make for a higher standard of living for the masses. Elaborate government machinery is worse than useless if it serves merely to protect the privileges of the few or, as is often the case, permits and assists the few to exploit the nation. The welfare of the common man must be the measure of the success of any democratic government, and measured by this standard I am afraid this government has failed. In his speech on March 15 the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) stated that the government was charged with responsibility. Well, that means the government must necessarily assume responsibility for the conditions that exist to-day, and the only way we can hope to improve the situation is by bringing the facts home to the government.
I do not intend to burden the record with further statistics; statistics have been given in abundance by the minister and by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey). As a matter of fact I feel weary of trying to portray the conditions which are known to all, and still more weary of listening to the apologies of the government. Granted that they have set up many projects; granted that they have assisted the provinces, granted too that they face a difficult world situation-as I see it the fact is that the government is not meeting or facing the situation. The minister pleaded certain constitutional difficulties and said that he had little patience with those who urged that the

2792	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
constitution should not be allowed to stand in the way. He read me a lecture. Well, if I may say so, I have little patience with those who magnify the difficulties of the constitution, or who insist on a narrow interpretation, or who place the letter of the constitution ahead of the present needs of the people. The minister has been generous enough to credit me with being one of the pioneers in the movement seeking amendments to the British North America Act, but let me say that no small portion of our difficulties arises because of the indefensible interpretations that have been placed upon that act. For example, only recently have women been recognized as "persons" under the terms of the act, and other similar absurd interpretations have been expressed. Our most pressing needs-and I believe even this question of unemployment-can be met under the act as it now stands. It is true that contributory insurance could not be enacted under the British North America Act, but under existing circumstances contributory insurance is no solution and indeed is not possible. The difficulties are not primarily those of jurisdiction.
The minister's next line of defence was that our difficulties were due to the international situation, and he spoke of economic nationalism. Undoubtedly our difficulties are aggravated by economic nationalism, but I submit that they are due to much more fundamental causes. Speaking of economic nationalism, the other day I came across a curious statement which illustrates its weaknesses even in regard to those countries that have adopted it:
According to Mr. Strachey, economic paralysis due to lack of markets had reached a tragic but amusing extreme in Holland, which illustrated the impasse to which capitalism has come. He told how, to mitigate unemployment, a part of the Zuyder Zee was drained as a "public works" project. The reclaimed land produced an excellent wheat crop, but the government did not know what to do with the wheat. It was finally sold at a low rate to the Danish government, which resold it to the Danish hog raisers as pig feed. It produced wonderful hogs which could not be sold, and were boiled down for fertilizer. Frantic search for markets finally resulted in the sale of the fertilizer, to the Dutch government very cheaply, and it was put back on the reclaimed land of the Zuyder Zee, whence the wheat had come to raise the hogs to produce the fertilizer.
It is in somewhat similar circumstances that we find ourselves at the present time.


Mr. CAHAN:: From whom is the hon.
gentleman quoting?


James Shaver Woodsworth: From a review of
a book by Mr. Strachey. Despite all this, the minister goes back to his phrases of returning confidence, greater production and expanding

markets, and declares that never at any time has he or the government adopted an attitude of defeat or despair. Well, it is fine if the minister can maintain his morale; it is fine if the government can maintain its morale, but what about the 662,000 persons receiving nonagricultural aid, these being totally unemployable, partially employable or fully employable, together with their dependents? What about the 316,000 persons on agricultural relief? What about the additional thousands who are not on relief but who should be? What about the thousands of young people dependent upon friends and relatives? What about the men in camps and on farms, without adequate remuneration and with no hope? I wonder what about their morale and how they can maintain it under those conditions?
I suggest that not only is the government on trial and that it has failed lamentably to meet the situation; more important still, the present economic system is on trial. And as long as we as a parliament refuse to face this situation and deal effectively with it, in reality we are undermining the very foundation of the representative institutions of democracy. A warning came a few weeks ago, from the Monetary Times of February 4, 1939. I read two or three brief paragraphs:
When the Prime Minister says in the House of Commons that there is no way to deal effectively with the perplexing problem of unemployment in Canada because it is a worldwide condition, he but sends more people in search of someone who will tackle this condition with the will to get results. When the leader of the opposition finds three hours insufficient to bring out even one valuable point of constructive criticism in regard to the government's moribund policy, he but destroys what little there was left of hope in the possible leadership which might have been offered by the Conservative party. Either the country must turn to the socialistic doctrines of the C.C.F. or to the weird conceptions of the social credit group, or construct completely new political machinery upon which it can depend for constructive policy and sound administrative action.
The country might thrive under a C.C.F. regime, and certainly it is a growing political force. Conditions might be better under social credit. Prosperity might come as the result of dictatorship. But whatever happens, the change in the administrative policies of Canada will be the result of old party bungling and the inattention to internal problems on the part of the present government.


Mr. THOMPSON:: From what is the hon. member quoting?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am quoting from the Monetary Times of February 4, 1939.


Mr. BRADETTE:: By whom?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think it is an editorial. It was published in Toronto and

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
can ibe readily looked up. I read this further paragraph:
True, the people of Canada do not want a dictatorship. The majority do not want a brand of radical socialism. But they do want an end of inactivity on the part of government, and some indication that the present government has a clear-cut policy with which to dissipate the serious internal problems of unemployment, unsatisfactory administrative relations between the provinces and the dominion, destructive taxation and the general want of confidence..
In short, the people want their problems and their needs put first and political party fortunes last.
I am not accusing the government of putting their own political fortunes first, but I do say that whatever the motive is, the government is failing to meet this very pressing problem.
The article to which I have referred speaks about the straightening up of dominion-provincial relations. Well, the government has told us again and again that it has appointed a commission. We were told a little while ago that the royal commission would report during this session of parliament. Then, later we were told that the commission found it impossible to do so, and that presentation of the report would be put off until after the prorogation of parliament. We are told, further, that probably the next step would be to secure some sort of constitutional conference in which the dominion and the provinces would be represented. That is the way the thing goes on. Now we are told it will not be possible thoroughly to discuss these immediate and practical problems because the king is coming, and it would be highly desirable that we should have the unique opportunity of having the king prorogue parliament. And so it would appear the discussion of these problems is to ibe curtailed.
Well, I would point out that whilst we take leisurely step after step after step and condone delay after delay, the people are suffering. I am not here to say whether or not the hon. member for Greenwood was quite correct in the statement he -made with regard to the number who are dying because of malnutrition, or because of accident and neglect. But anyone who has visited the hostels of this country, anyone who has visited the hospitals of this country, anyone who has visited the homes of the poor in the country, anyone who has been up and down the railroads and heard the stories of the boys who are riding the rods, knows perfectly well that scores, if not hundreds, have died through no other reason than the public neglect of the unemployed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Would my hon. friend care to present his evidence for that statement?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am not going to present evidence for the minister. I said 71492-176^
it was my opinion, and my statement is perfectly in order. I said anyone who had been around the country and has heard the stories of these men from their own lips, who has visited the homes of the people, who has visited hospitals, knows that people have died of neglect. I am not prepared to give evidence.


Norman McLeod Rogers: One other question. Will he not acknowledge that other members of the house have shared the experience to which he has just referred?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, possibly; but I cannot quite understand how other members of the house can differ from my conclusions in that regard. I am not accusing the minister of heartlessness. Of course I am not. I knew him before he came to this house, and I know him too well to say that. But, to be perfectly frank-possibly it is because I have not been in a position of responsibility as a member of the cabinet-I have often wondered whether, because of the numerous duties which are placed upon ministers of the cabinet, it has not become almost impossible or, shall I say very difficult, for them to see the picture as it is. I sometimes wonder whether or not they are too dependent upon the reports of their officials, and whether they are not too close to the figures to grasp the human meaning of those figures. I have been almost inclined to interpret the situation in that way.
I say that because I cannot look across at the minister, or at other members of the cabinet, and think that they are less humane than those of us who happen to be sitting on this side of the house. I think the minister will absolve me from any suggestion that I am saying this merely to reap political advantage. I am not doing that. But I have had the opportunity of meeting with a great many of these people, and not merely during the term of office of this government. Unfortunately I have had to say much the same things during the term of the preceding government-and long, long years before that. In fact, I was dealing with similar conditions long before I ever came to this House of Commons.
This is not a recent problem. We have had unemployment with us for years and years- yes, even during the great rush in immigration days there were large numbers' of unemployed. But we all know that in recent years the unemployment situation has been greatly aggravated. I believe one of the troubles is that most of us are still going largely on the supposition that if a man is out of a job it is more or less his own fault. In the old days that was to a great extent
2794	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
true, but it is not true to-day. There is no doubt that a person with exceptional ability and exceptional perseverance will land a job ahead of others. But where one man in a hundred gets his job, the other ninety-nine are out of work. While a lot of our young people are getting along fairly well in life, a great many others have yet to get their first job.
It seems to me we must disabuse our minds of the old ideas which prevailed when we were children, and recognize to-day that this unemployment situation is in aggravated form. W'e must deal with it as it is. We must be fair to those unfortunate people, and deal with their problem at whatever cost to the public treasury! W'e talk about $63,000,000 for defence purposes; I do not feel like voting one dollar for defence purposes so long as there is a hungry man in Canada.
It seems to me we must adjust our scale of values in this matter. Sometimes we talk as if we could set this responsibility aside, and that the decision as to whether or not we deal with the problem is one which depends upon the generosity of governments. It is nothing of the kind. We come back to what I said in starting, that the success of a democratic government is surely measured by the way in which it deals with the unemployed.
A colleague has just handed me a note which I shall read:
At the moment there are approximately two hundred single unemployed men in front of the arliament buildings seeking to lay their case efore the minister. Seventy-five of their number are without provision for food and shelter.
I have not been out doors. The minister asked for my evidence. In this instance I have this evidence, this note which has just been passed to me by my colleague; that is all.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit me, because my name has been mentioned? A few moments ago I was called from the chamber to meet two of his colleagues, who quite properly presented to me a request that I should meet a delegation from these single unemployed men. Some days before I had met the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), who had made a similar request to me. I told him then that it was not possible or desirable from an administrative point of view that a federal Minister of Labour should meet local delegations from the city of Ottawa, that it had never been done, and it would not make for successful administration. I said that if these men through their association wished to communicate anything to me by way of letter I would be pleased to receive it and would

deal with it courteously, and I would be pleased also to ' vr mv representation^ they wished to make through members of this house who approached me. At Uie same time, Mr. Speaker, I believe my original decision was right, not to meet local delegations of unemployed men. I explained that decision to my colleagues, and I propose to adhere to it. But that does not in any way suggest a lack of consideration for these men. I have made it perfectly clear that I shall be ready at any time to receive any communication they desire to make to me by letter or through my hon. friend or his colleagues.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not criticizing the minister's policy; that is for him to decide, but I read this statement to call attention to the actual facts of the situation. The statement is made that there are two hundred single unemployed men in front of the parliament buildings and that seventy-five of their number are without provisions. I say that I have not been outside to investigate, and I ask the minister to take the statement as it has been given to me to-day and as I have just given it, that there are two hundred unemployed men outside the parliament buildings. I have only to go to my own city of Winnipeg to find similar conditions, only in much more aggravated form. I have been across this country and I find the same conditions everywhere. There are these two hundred men in front of our doors to-day, and the minister says: "I cannot do anything about it officially; I cannot meet them because that is not a good policy." But what are these men to do? My colleague suggests that they should write a letter to the minister. They have written letters until they are sick and tired of writing letters.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend has asked me a question: What are these men to do? I share his desire that they might find their way as soon as possible into employment, not necessarily public employment, but employment in which they would have an opportunity to earn a remunerative and self-respecting living.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Just where?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the last year some
fifteen hundred men from the employment office in the city of Ottawa were placed on farms in this area and at this time of year additional employment is being offered in connection with various government services. All who register at the employment office are eligible for that work.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know they are
eligible, but it does not make any difference

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
whether fifteen hundred or fifteen thousand men were placed in employment last summer. The fact is that at the present time there are two hundred men waiting outside this building, and seventy-five of them have no means of eating. Is nothing to be done about them? That is the condition which prevails all over this country from Cape Breton right across to Victoria. Every mail that comes to me brings me further evidence of this kind of thing. What is to be done? The fact is the minister has no plan to meet the situation. The minister and the government say: If we cannot do it, we refer it to the provinces; and if the provinces cannot do it they refer it to the municipalities. The municipalities turn round and refer it back to the provinces, and the provinces to the dominion. In the meantime the men suffer physically-and they suffer demoralization. I must leave it at that I
Before my line of thought was interrupted a few minutes ago I was referring to some of the underlying factors that enter into the situation. The unemployment situation has been developing over a number of years-long before we ever heard of economic nationalism, which the minister has stressed. I quote a paragraph or two from Census Monograph No. 9. on the Dependency of Youth, published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, a document cited yesterday by the hon. member for Greenwood:
The average young person on reaching the age of 20 in 1911 had earned twice as much as those reaching 20 in 1931.
Social effects of the increased dependency are suggested by the unusual fall in the marriage rate among young people between 20 and 24 years of age (20 per cent for men and 13 per cent for women) as well as in the 100 per cent increase in the illegitimate birth rate from 1921 to 1931.
Again:
The development of large-scale enterprise has increased the proportion of wage-earners to independent workers.
An attempt is made to gain a conception of the actual number of boys and young men of ages 15-24 lacking gainful occupation in 1936. The combined percentage of those without work due either to loss of employment or to never having been gainfully occupied appears to be over 16 per cent; in round numbers, this group approximates 155,000. or one and one-half times the supply of new workers coming of age annually. Since nearly all of this group are non-farm boys, the average length of idleness for boys living in the city appears to be about two years.
The fact that industry for so long has come 10 per cent short of using the biological supply of youth, should make it clear that the youth situation is not just a depression phenomenon but a deeply rooted problem.
That is what I would impress upon this government. Let me quote from another
[Mr. Woodsworth.l
source, which may seem a little remote at first glance, the conclusion of the report of the governor of the Bank of Canada, at page 17:
ft seems safe to say that in the present state of international relationships broad recovery in the section of the economy to which I have referred is unlikely to be rapid. It therefore seems obvious that unemployment in its existing proportions cannot be regarded as entirely, or even chiefly, a short-term problem.
What are we doing about it year after year? Just shifting the problem a little bit ahead of us. meeting some of the more immediate pressing needs; if possible, cutting a certain number of people off relief or praying that spring may come and that some will be turned loose to forage for themselves.
I ask the minister: Is the international situation a provincial matter? Is the international situation a municipal matter? If not, can the municipalities be held responsible for those long-term widely-planned measures which alone can meet the situation? In the meantime should one-tenth of our population be allowed to suffer just because there have been international difficulties that have interrupted the regular course of trade and commerce or closed some of our markets to us? We have in this country all that is necessary to supply the needs of the Canadian people. We have our natural resources; we have capital equipment-the stored up wealth through which we can produce more wealth; we have money, whatever that is; and we have men. The trouble is a lack of proper economic arrangements. Fundamentally we have it within our own power to alter the present economic arrangements; but that this government will not do, and so they identify themselves with the maintenance of this antiquated economic system.
I should like to quote a few paragraphs from an article by a prominent economist, Professor Broadus Mitchell, associate professor of political economy, Johns Hopkins university, appearing in Current History, in its issue of February, 1935:
Social insurance is not enough because of fundamental defects in our prevailing mode of producing and distributing wealth. No insurance plan can be more solvent than the economic structure upon which it rests. Insurance means converting individual uncertainty into collective certainty. But when wre try to include the great mass of the population we suddenly discover that there is no social certainty. In other words, when we make the sum of the risks practically identical with the social causes of those risks insurance becomes impossible. As Mary Van Kleeck has said, "insurance conceived as provision in advance for needs which, though not foreseeable for the individual are measurable for the social group, breaks down
2796	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
when needs are no longer foreseeable on the basis of past experience but are expressed in a change of social trends." . . .
Our economic ups and clowns are not due to the eccentricities of nature. . . . Our vexation arises from the failure of our price-and-profit system to work in harmony with our productive capacities. . . .
What this system needs is not more plant, more production, but a relative enlargement of consumption. . . .
. . . but cyclical and technological unemployment burst all bounds. The beginning of wisdom in meeting these terrifying disorders is the recognition that they are inherent in the capitalist economic system. . . .
I cannot see that we shall get any further in solving the problem of unemployment or in straightening out the anomalies of our present arrangements in Canada until we as a people recognize that we must make fundamental adjustments in our whole economic system. I continue:
Men, since they learned to exchange goods and use money, have entertained three successive conceptions of wealth. The Mercantilists considered that wealth was cash. The laissez faire school thought and still thinks that wealth is commodities. The collectivists, their preachments at length confirmed by the march of events, know that wealth consists in neither cash nor commodities but in capacities. . . .
What we need is to control the energies at our command. We should not be anxious to socialize a part of the product, but resolve to socialize the whole of the power. . . .
The task of placing goods at the use of consumers is hindered at every turn by allegiance to the capitalist mode of production and distribution, which has become increasingly unworkable. . . .
Social security will proceed from economic stability and steady progress. This requires planning, and planning requires unquestioned control by organized society over the means of production.
I turn from the economic aspect of the case and I urge that at bottom this is a moral problem. It involves fundamental questions as regards both our economic system and the state itself. Recently there have been many eulogies of the late pope. May I pay my tribute :by quoting from him and thus seek to spread his teachings. I think I quoted some years ago a few passages from the encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno on the reconstruction of the social order. The situation is outlined:
Towards the close of the nineteenth century the new economic methods and the new development of industry had sprung into being in almost all civilized nations, and had made such headway that human society appeared more and more divided into two classes. The first, small in numbers, enjoyed practically all the comforts so plentifully supplied by modern invention. The second class, comprising the immense multitude of workingmen, was made up of those who, oppressed by dire poverty, struggled in vain to escape from the straits which encompassed them.

This state of things was quite satisfactory to the wealthy, who looked upon it as the consequence of inevitable and natural economic laws, and who, therefore, were content to abandon to charity alone the full care of relieving the unfortunate, as though it were the task of charity to make amends for the open violation of justice, a violation not merely tolerated, but sanctioned at times by legislators. On the other hand, the working classes, victims of these harsh conditions, submitted to them with extreme reluctance, and became more and more unwilling to bear the galling yoke .	.	..	.	. the immense number of propertyless wage-earners on the one hand, and the superabundant riches of the fortunate few on the other, is an unanswerable argument that the earthly goods so abundantly produced in this age of industrialism are far from rightly distributed and equitably shared among the various classes of men.
Having stated the situation, his holiness then goes on to discuss the whole question of the rights of property. He says:
History proves that the right of ownership, like other elements of social life, is not absolutely rigid .	.	.
Again:
For it is rightly contended that certain forms of property must be reserved to the state, since they carry with them an opportunity of domination too great to be left to private individuals without injury to the community at large.
He speaks of the arbitrary power which is now placed in the hands of the few. I quote:
In the first place, then, it is patent that in our days not alone is wealth accumulated, but immense power and despotic economic domination is concentrated in the hands of a few, and that those few are frequently not the owners, but only the trustees and directors of invested funds, who administer them at their good pleasure.
This power becomes particularly irresistible when exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, are able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for that reason supplying so to speak, the life-blood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of production, so that no one dare breathe against their will.
This accumulation of power, the characteristic note of the modern economic order, is a natural result of limitless free competition which permits the survival of those only who are the strongest, which often means those who fight most relentlessly, who pay least heed to the dictates of conscience.
This concentration of power has led to a three-fold struggle for domination. First, there is the struggle for dictatorship in the economic sphere itself: then, the fierce battle to acquire control of the state, so that its resources and authority may be abused in the economic struggles. Finally, the clash between states themselves.
There is one other brief sentence which I would commend to my fellow members of the Catholic faith, because I believe that the attitude of the church has often been misrepresented. His holiness says:

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
If these changes continue, it may well come about that gradually the tenets of mitigated socialism will no longer be different from the program of those who seek to reform human society according to Christian principles.
I wish I had time to elaborate on these pregnant statements.
If the problem cannot be solved under the existing economic system, then by all means let us try a new economic system. The minister and the government have no solution under the present economic system.
In the little time which remains to me I should like to quote from a memorandum which was presented by some of the transient unemployed who are connected with the John Frank's house in Toronto, an institution already alluded to to-day by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). I do not know that I approve in toto this memorandum, but it struck me that since the unemployed were not able to be present here to put their own case I should like to have the honour of presenting their point of view just as they themselves presented it:
We, the members of John Frank's house, believe that every man should have the right to work and to receive a reasonable living wage for his efforts. We consider that, when potentially employable men are unable to find such work, great harm is done in a very short time both to the nation and to the persons concerned.
At present, many thousands of young Canadians who, during the past few years, left the municipality of their "legal residence" and went in search of work wherever they thought it might be found, are unable to find gainful employment. Many are wasting their youth and becoming prospective public charges by working in temporary jobs like serfs for their keep.
Many more are hungry, ill-clad, without permanent shelter. Undernourished or incorrectly fed, lacking preventive medical treatment, subject to merciless exposure to all seasons, their physical condition has suffered badly. Idle, or trekking a great deal of the time, their ability to do things has slowed down. Their plight, and their numbers, represent a situation many times more grave than federal authorities seem willing to admit.
These men set out to seek work at living wages and, despite the unfortunate effects of their experiences, that is what most of them still want. In our opinion it would be a serious mistake to provide them with relief or hosteliza-tion, except on a very short emergency basis, for such a course, if continued, might convert them into permanent relief seekers. The only answer to their problem is immediate rehabilitation and gainful employment.
Such a solution, on a final basis, may best be found through healthful stimulation of commerce and industry until Canadian business reaches that point where it can provide employment, at living wages, for all who honestly seek it. Such a happy situation, however, may be slow in arriving and at present there is urgent need for speed because idle men become daily less employable.
It seems to us that the only possible immediate solution, which can meet the need adeuately, is to be found in the establishing of works project and training camps on a scale sufficiently large to provide gainful employment for at least 200,000 men.
These camps, however, must be small-each with a capacity of 125 men at most-if they are best to serve their purpose in making selfreliant citizens of their members. These camps should be under the control of the dominion Department of Labour-not of the Department of Defence, and certainly not under the thumb of any self-appointed group of ex-military men or private citizens, however well-meaning.
In direct criticism of existing well-publicized plans for large camps, we submit that large camps become breeding places for discontent. We predict-with confidence based on experience and observation-that the regimentation, necessary for discipline in large camps, would bring immediate and serious trouble from transients. If, however, such regimentation were successful, it would merely increase the difficulty in reestablishing individuals in civil life at the end of their enlistment. In effect, it would fit them for little except continued life in camps or in a standing army. If, however, the underlying purpose of these large camp plans is to increase Canada's standing army, we should suggest, with all sincerity, that the best way to accomplish this would be by increasing the standing army, not by establishing a private army under another name.
To return to our suggestion of small camps, we should recommend that campers be divided into age groups and that the camps be of two types in order to met the distinctly different requirements of these age groups.
One type of camp-a combined work project and training scheme-should be for men under 25 years of age. In these camps, men should be housed, fed, clothed, and paid a wage of a dollar per day. Their daily schedule should be almost equally divided between honest work, under rigid supervision, on useful works projects, and between training of a vocational and educational nature fitting them to enter primary or secondary industry as self-reliant citizens.
A second type of camp, for men of over 25 years of age, should be established on a straight works camp basis, paying 35 cents per hour for work honestly done, less reasonable charges for medical care and housing. Here again, for the good of the men, it would be advisable to make a further division in age groups, setting aside some camps for men over 40 years of age.
It would also seem advisable that some plan were used to provide training for men in industries where skilled craftsmen are needed. It is generally acknowledged that, since the breakdown of the apprentice system in Canada, the source of supply for various types of skilled craftsmen has been cut off. Therefore, we should suggest that a limited number of carefully selected men be chosen from the camps and placed in industry-their salary being shared by government and employer during their training period.
We should also suggest a general housecleaning of government employment bureaus-* a matter which is sadly overdue-so that they might be able to give aggressive and efficient assistance in finding employment for men at the conclusion of their camp work.
I must thank you and the house, Mr. Speaker, for permitting me to finish the memorandum.
2798	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


George Ernest Wood: Since I have had the honour to represent the constituency of Brant I have spoken nearly every year to a resolution similar to the one at present before the house, and I think I should be remiss in my duty if I did not approach the question from the point of view of an agriculturist. It is possible I may not have that sympathy with the unemployed which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) shows, inasmuch as I have been associated with the farm throughout almost my whole life. Never since the time I left school have I had to face the ravages of unemployment. I have never known in my time what it was not to have something planned for me to do the next morning. That being so, perhaps I should make this qualification, because this is a serious question and we must approach it from the point of view of the actual facts. I qualify my remarks in this way because if I happen to say anything that suggests a want of complete sympathy with those unfortunate people whose lot we are considering, it will be because I have not experienced the difficulties which the unemployed of Canada are facing to-day.
May I also preface my remarks by congratulating the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) upon his able presentation. I regret very much that he is not in the house at present. I sat patiently for four hours yesterday listening to him, and I was greatly impressed with his ability to express his thoughts in such splendid phraseology. It is a great privilege to have that ability. His quick retorts to interruptions were also masterful. I noticed that he was extremely resourceful, because when he could not make a reply that was pertinent to the question, he would attempt to quote the classics. His frequent references to Shakespeare reminded me of my limited acquaintance with the classics, gained in an elementary education. After he aspired for the leadership of the great National Conservative party I was reminded of the immortal lines of Gray to the effect that:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
I am prompted to make a few observations by the fact that so many of the speeches to which we have listened emanated from the great industrial centres. From my point of view one tragic feature which has greatly aggravated the situation is the fact that the young people have been lured from the farms to the cities. I am inclined to the view that if the conditions prevailed to-day that we had thirty or even twenty years ago, when 
sixty per cent of the population of Canada was on the land, we should not have the present distress.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the
hon. member, suppose we had sixty per cent of the entire population on the land, where would they find markets for their production?


George Ernest Wood: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should be intelligent enough to answer that question himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: We will turn the clock back thirty years for you.


George Ernest Wood: First of all, if the lord had seen fit to put Adam and Eve in a city he would have built a city for them. But he did not do so; he put them on the farm, and in view of the profession of the hon. member before he came into politics-


John Charles Landeryou: He did not put them on a farm, he put them in a garden.


George Ernest Wood: What is a farm for? A farm is a place on which to make a living, it is a place where one can produce for oneself food, clothing and shelter by the application of labour. I do not know that it necessarily follows that because there are more people on the farm production increases to such an extent that there is more to sell than people can consume. But I do believe it would be very much better if this unemployed ten per cent of the population were back on the farm at least making their own living, growing their own food; then those on the farm to-day would not be taxed, as I contend they are as wealth creators, to maintain a standard of living for the unemployed which is out of all proportion to that of those who are maintaining them. If they were producing their own living we would not have to make it for them. That is my answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, whether or not it satisfies him. But I am convinced that this would be a solution of the major part of our problem.
I should like also to comment upon the contribution of the hon. member for Greenwood yesterday. Unfortunately he spoiled it by an extravagant statement, the sort of thing which has a tendency to undermine our institutions. He waxes eloquent about his high motives and ideals, so it was especially unfortunate that he spoiled a masterpiece in that way. I feel that a large part of the difficulty we have in Canada to-day is on account of the fact that we have lured young men to the city by contributing so much in the form

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
of relief. I do not want to be misunderstood, I do not begrudge any contribution we are giving to these unfortunate people-


Mr. HEAPS:: Who does the hon. member mean by "we?"


George Ernest Wood: It is a condition of affairs that has trained them to stand on the street comers instead of doing something for themselves. We have crowded people together in great numbers in the industrial centres, and they are something like the young birds in the spring, with their mouths open for the elders to drop worms in them; I am afraid that is the condition of affairs we are creating. I do not blame them for it, but I say that we are encouraging this condition of affairs, to the detriment of those who are on the farms, and so aggravating a serious situation. I think that the party to which the hon. member for Greenwood belongs has perhaps contributed largely to that unfortunate condition by the special legislation which it passed in 1930 when $20,000,000 was set aside for no other purpose than the dole. They started in this country a condition of affairs which my own leader warned could only bring about the situation that exists to-day.
The hon. member for Greenwood professed disappointment regarding the accomplishments of certain social legislation which in his view would have gone a long way towards solving our problem. We have no unemployment insurance to-day, and I believe the reason is partly that the confidence of the provinces was destroyed by the fact that legislation was attempted to be forced upon them which they felt involved a surrender of their rights, and which they therefore resented. I believe that had the former government seen fit to clear the deck and lay a foundation by amending the British North America Act at the proper time, and then passed its legislation, we would not have the disunity that hon. members opposite talk so much about to-day.
However, for my part I am not so impressed with the seriousness of this disunity as some hon. members profess to be. After all, Canada is a federation. We start right at the school sections. I had the honour to start right at the base of our governmental life, right in the school section. A school section demands certain things from the township; the township demands certain things from the county; the county demands certain things from the province, and the provinces of course are only doing their duty when they rise to the occasion and do everything possible for the people whose affairs they are 71492-177
called upon to administer. That is an indication that the men who hold public positions to-day in Canada are taking their duties seriously, doing everything they can for the people for whom they are responsible, and getting as much as possible for them. I was "guilty" of it myself; I quite remember going through all these stages of governmental life. I asserted my right, in the position in which I happened to be, to get as much as possible and to give the very best type of legislation I could when I had that particular responsibility of office. But I do not view so seriously these differences of opinion that prevail, because I believe we have men who are anxious to serve their people.
I wish to draw attention to some conditions as I see them in Canada, after listening to the speeches of hon. members opposite who have been bemoaning our troubles. One listening to the debates in this house at this time might well be led to think that we have on the other side the greatest exhibition of calamity howlers that any parliament has ever seen. But let us look at a- few facts and see if we have not even made some progress. Let us not be so pessimistic as to think that this whole country has gone to the dogs, because in spite of what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said a few moments ago as to our system having broken down, if this is a broken-down system I believe people who are living on this northern part of the north American continent are enjoying a far higher standard of living than almost any other country in the world, including some which are carrying on under an economic system that some hon. gentlemen would approve in preference to what we have to-day.
I should like to draw the hon. member's attention to something I happened to see in the Toronto Telegram, which I purchased on my way from the train on Tuesday. I am sure the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) would approve anything published in this newspaper. Under the heading " Sparks from the anvil," there appears a table indicating the amount of bread that can be purchased with one hour's pay in different countries. Perhaps I might read a few words from the article:
There are many people who consider there should be some change in the monetary system-
Perhaps this will interest our social credit friends as well.
-and that goods should be based on definite units of labour. Along that line it may be of interest to quote a table which shows an hour of labour in Canada and the United States will buy about 7-5 pounds of bread-

2800	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
In England it will buy 5-2 pounds; in France, 5 pounds; in Belgium, 4-9 pounds; in Italy, 2-8 pounds, and in Germany, 2-5 pounds. Last on the list is Russia, and I wish the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had remained in his place to listen to this. The figure for Russia is 1-9 pounds, and that is the country whose system is perhaps nearest that which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would recommend for this country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I state that I have not at any time advocated the Russian system for Canada. The hon. member probably knows that. If he does not I would reaffirm it, as I have done a hundred times in this house. Recently we have been strong advocates of a system as similar as possible to that in effect in Sweden or New Zealand.


George Ernest Wood: I accept the word of the hon. member; I understand that he wishes to make it clear to the people of Canada that he does not advocate the Russian system, but if he will look at Hansard I think he will find that I said the Russian system, of all those mentioned in this article, was probably nearest to the system which he advocated.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Quote New Zealand.


George Ernest Wood: Unfortunately New Zealand does not appear in this list, but perhaps I can quote New Zealand oh some other matters which may be of interest to the hon. member.


John Charles Landeryou: If I may ask the hon. member a question, what is the average relief rate paid to relief recipients in Canada? There are about a million unemployed on relief, including those in agricultural and urban areas. What is the average rate of relief per month for food, clothing and shelter? Does the hon. member know?


George Ernest Wood: I do not happen to be a walking encyclopsedia, and I really cannot remember the figure. But I will estimate that it is not so very much less than the average income of those who follow my own occupation in life, who represent about forty per cent of the people of Canada and who raise the food for the rest of the people.


John Charles Landeryou: For the information of my hon. friend it is about $6.47 per month.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


George Ernest Wood: The hon. member can make
his own speech. I know there are some families that perhaps do not get too much, in relation to the standard of living in the cities, nevertheless I believe the rate would be quite

comparable with what the average farmer would receive in cash. I realize, of course, that in addition the farmer gets many other things that are not purchased with cash. For one thing he gets a great deal of his living from the farm, and I think that indicates one great solution of our problem which the hon. member for Greenwood might have included in the list he gave the house. I think I might suggest two or three further additions to his suggestions. I believe that we should bring about such a state of affairs as will lure unemployed with agricultural backgrounds back to the land. We have had some advanced agricultural legislation brought into the house; some may view parts of it as unsound, but I believe it is emergency legislation that is necessary if those who live on the land are to get a fair share of the national income. Because I take that ground I am glad to support that legislation; for, if in a country like Canada we do not endeavour to maintain a strong, virile population on our farms, Canada will not long continue to be the country it is to-day.


John Charles Landeryou: That is right, but
the hon. member's party is in power; why not do something?


George Ernest Wood: I am sorry, but I do not
hear what the hon. member is saying.
The hon. member for Greenwood also bewailed the fiscal policy of this country and said industry was going into a decline. I should like to direct attention to page 940 of the Canada Year Book, 1938, in regard to the dividends paid by industry in Canada. In 1934 those dividends amounted to $185,760,000. In 1935 they rose to $222,629,000, and in 1938 they amounted to $319,804,000, or an increase of almost $100,000,000 between the latter two years. Does that look as though industry is suffering as a consequence of the fiscal legislation of this government? I believe the figures for 1938 are very close to those for 1937, showing a difference of only about $2,000,000. I cannot understand a man rising in his place in the House of Commons and making statements to the house and the country when he knows the figures prove the contrary. He must have some other purpose in mind than to enlighten the public, and for that reason I sometimes question the sincerity of what comes from the other side of the house when hon. members decry our country to the world. After all, I am prepared to be sufficiently loyal to Canada to say we have the best country in the world in which a man can make a living.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
If that is not sufficient I should like to draw attention to the condition of business in general. Generally when conditions are bad there are more cases of insolvency and ultimate commercial failure. In 1934 there were 1,600 failures in Canada. In 1937 that number was reduced to 952, a reduction of 648. Surely this shows that we are on the right track and that something has been accomplished.
The hon. member for Greenwood went on to say that industry had lost confidence as a result of tariff tinkering; I think that was the term he used. I should like to draw the attention of the house to the figures in connection with the construction of factory buildings in Canada over a period of six years. In 1932 there was $7,820,400 invested in factory buildings for the promotion of industry in the Dominion of Canada. By 1937 that figure had gone up to $33,779,800. Does that look as though the policies of this government were bringing ruin to industry? If the hon. member for Greenwood wishes to face the facts he should revise his statement. If he is as good a Canadian as he purports to be, he must realize that kind of speech cannot accomplish anything for the good of Canada.
After all, one must compare Canada with other countries in which there is a similar standard of living and in which similar conditions exist. May I point out that in respect of trade Canada stands to-day in fourth place among the exporting nations of the world. Surely if we have advanced from sixth to fourth place some credit is due the Canadian people and to the administration which has found markets for the products of our labour. When we have been able to meet the competition of other peoples to that extent, it would seem that at least we are making progress faster than other comparable countries.
One of the major indications of the prosperity of a country is the rate of interest at which it is able to borrow money. After' all, if the risk is higher the rate also is higher. I am prepared to say that of a group of six countries including the United States, France, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and the United Kingdom only one, the United States, is borrowing money at a rate lower than that enjoyed by Canada. The rate of interest in the United States is 2-69 per cent. Of course they may have issued more tax-free bonds than any other country, a fact which may have some bearing upon the rate I have indicated. Canada stands in second position with a rate of 3-53 per cent. We have looked upon the United Kingdom as one of the greatest financial countries of the
71492-177 J
world. Probably she has loaned more money and financed more enterprises in all parts of the world than has any other country. British sterling is recognized as a standard. Yet the United Kingdom is paying a rate of 3-56 per cent, or -03 per cent higher than we pay. One must not forget that the United Kingdom has age-old consols and perpetuals on which she pays only 2 per cent, all of which would have a tendency to reduce her rate. Despite that advantage we borrow our money cheaper than does the United Kingdom.
Something has been said about New Zealand, but I would point out that we borrow money considerably cheaper than does New Zealand. Their rate is 3-78 per cent, while that of Australia, where some of the most drastic methods of debt reduction have been made effective, is 3-98 per cent. Despite objections on the part of some people we have retained sound policies and have met our obligations, with the result that confidence in the Canadian people has been established, and to-day our credit position is one of the best in the world. These are some of the facts which cannot be disputed. I have secured my figures from those issued about June 30, 1938, by the League of Nations.
As a rule I am cautious about giving the opinions of other people. Generally my observations arise from a survey of conditions as I see them. My opinion is that this is the only useful contribution I can make. I am more or less practical and I like to state my impressions. For a moment, however, I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the words of one who is considered probably the greatest authority on economics. I refer to Roger Babson. On his return from Europe last fall he made a statement in which he observed he believed that to-day Canada offered the best opportunities for the investment of money and of all the countries in the world was the most desirable in which to live. He said that a young man coming to Canada would have advantages he could get in no other country, and that while we have made some mistakes in Canada he believed we have made fewer mistakes in legislation than has any other country of which he is aware. I say to a large extent that condition is a result of the fact that for a goodly portion of the time since confederation Liberal governments have been in office. That, in my view, is the answer to Mr. Babson' statement. We have enjoyed sane, economic administration. If one were to check the debt of Canada as it stands to-day, if he were to add all the surpluses under Liberal administrations and those under Conservative administrations,
2802	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
and balance them against the deficits of these respective parties, he would find that only $23,000,000 of a total interest bearing debt of $3,100,000,000 can be attributed to Liberal administration. I point that out as one of the reasons for Mr. Babson^ statement that in Canada we have suffered less foolish governmental policies than any other country.
While I am on the point I should like to say I was deeply impressed with the sincerity of the hon. member for Greenwood in his appeal to youth. He waxed eloquent on what he would do for youth, and yet he is the man who has chosen to follow that reactionary party which has placed upon the backs of the youth of Canada the burden of paying a debt of about three billion dollars, a debt which is traceable to the party of his choice. How can the hon. member be sincere in his eloquence for the youth of Canada when the party to which he belongs has been guilty of saddling youth with more debt and has done more to mortgage future generations than any other party in Canada.
I take this opportunity to read the following newspaper article respecting Mr. Babson's views:
"Invest in Canada," he advised. "Canada's bullish outlook should mean some good investment opportunities in the securities of Canadian banking, utility and industrial concerns."
I do not think any higher tribute could be paid to a nation by one who is probably one of the greatest authorities in the world. The article continues:
Mr. Babson was in England during the European crisis last September. He believed that England is looking more and more for a stronghold for her supplies-a base for her industries that will be safe from the marauding of modern bombers. Such a stronghold is Canada.
"Conditions being as they are to-day in Europe, Great Britain must have a safe place to develop her industries. Few realize it, but the bombing plane will actually revolutionize English civilization."
He believed the mother country is looking across the sea to Canada. North America is practically immune to bombing attacks, provided an enemy cannot establish an air base on this side of the Atlantic. Canada is in the geographical centre of the empire, therefore, he said, it was only logical that England should look to Canada as the storm cellar for her reserves. It is reported that England is now investing $100,000,000 in Canadian aviation plants, he said.
Then the article goes on to refer to the visit of the king and queen. I believe there was no reason for his expressing an opinion such as I have read if that opinion did not express what he believed were the actual facts. I think it is recognized that in this particular
'Mr. Wood.]
line there is no one whose opinion is more sought or more respected than that of Roger Babson.
I have my own opinions about the solution of many problems of the individual, but whether they would apply nationally is a question. I believe in the system of democratic government, under which every man has the right to guide and direct his own life within our economic structure just as he sees fit. If a man chooses a course that brings disaster upon him, I do not know that there is very much we can do about it except to use our influence with those associated with us to try to show him the proper way. I am a great believer in self-reliance for the individual.
I do not know just how far government can go to relieve our present problems, but I will say that I know of no country under democratic government that has made a better job of it than has this dominion. Some countries have resorted to dictatorships, but a price must be paid for that, and are we prepared to surrender our liberties to any dictatorship? I believe that the great majority of the people of this dominion want to lead a self-reliant, ambitious life of their own choosing. But to-day there are so many distractions for youth that it is almost impossible for them to face the sober realities of life and make the sacrifices that are necessary to build a home and provide for their future. I believe that nothing can be accomplished without sacrifice, and until we ourselves realize that we have to make sacrifices we cannot expect others to make sacrifices for us.
Some may say that the standard of relief is not high enough, but at least the country is giving as much as it gets in return. I am sorry for those who are suffering under present conditions, but I have come to the point where I believe that some consideration should be given to a certain class of people in this country who are not wealthy, and I believe I represent that class of people myself, people who are trying to pay their taxes and carry their burdens, and taking the other fellow by the hand. I have no particular brief for the wealthy man because he can look after himself, but I am concerned for those who are trying to do their duty, paj'ing their way, helping the other fellow where they can, and who are getting somewhat of a raw deal in our present economic order.
We have developed in this country a standard of living that has some relationship to our economic situation to-day, and I sometimes wonder if we are not living beyond our means. In Ontario, for example, there is one automobile for every five people, and on the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
other hand, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated, there was a group of young men outside these buildings this afternoon wanting work. It seems to me that there are too many people on wheels to-day. I do not wish to refer particularly to the youth movement, but a great deal of youth movement is on wheels. I am not 'blaming them for it, because sometimes I believe the blame belongs probably to people of our age, to the parents, the older grey-haired people who go out playing bridge and go to parties instead of staying at home looking after their children. Naturally when the parents go out playing bridge, the children get into the sugar-bowl and among the cookies. It is not altogether the young people's fault if they have become soft, because we may have failed to train them to meet the sober realities of life. Life is the product of labour, and it is well that we should prepare to give our children a little bit of a start in life.
It has been pointed out that there are four million depositors in the banks of this country, with an average deposit of over $500. So it cannot be said that there are not many people in this dominion who are trying to provide for their own social security. Will anyone say for one moment that when we have in Canada 3,500,000 insurance policyholders, with an average of two thousand dollars of life insurance, they are not taking steps to look after the future welfare of themselves and their families? True, we have not unemployment insurance, but I want to tell this house that unemployment insurance is not very popular among the farmers. They look upon it as only another policy that is going to add to their present load, which is already burdensome. We have to-day an Annuities Act under which any young man, 21 years of age, who will contribute S20.62 a year can draw the equivalent of an old age pension at sixty-five years of age, and if he dies before that, his contributions are returned to his estate with four per cent interest. So we have the machinery to-day whereby, if a man will intelligently direct his efforts and save a part of the product of his labour, storing it up for his own social security, he can in some measure provide for his own future. I am not sure that the question of unemployment insurance is a serious one to-day except that it gives hon. members opposite something to find fault with the government about. They call this a "do-nothing government," but that is a mere phrase in view of the accomplishments which I have mentioned to the credit of this government in the past three years. Such talk is not the way to establish confidence. It
does not do to be continually sniping at the government and bemoaning conditions, dragging out of the gutter all the foul and filthy things that there are in a country. If we would rise up and hold our chins a bit higher it would help us, and we can hold our chins up with a great deal of pride because Canada has the wherewithal that lends dignity to us as a nation.
I see that I have almost exhausted my time, Mr. Speaker. There are a few other matters on which I should have liked to touch had time permitted. There has been a great onslaught on governments and on certain institutions. There has been an organized attack made by some people on the salaries paid for by the taxpayers to men occupying prominent positions in public life. Canada to-day has probably one of the most brilliant cabinets we ever had, and what we pay for it is only twice as much as is drawn by Deanna Durbin, the motion picture star. I have here a list of people drawing high salaries in the United States, and some of the salaries are very large. I think it is unfortunate that we have in this country a type of mind that does not want to pay for actual services performed and results accomplished.. They do not like to pay for food, clothing and shelter, although Canada can provide that just as cheaply as any country in the world, as I pointed out just a few moments ago. Yet these same people have no objection to paying enormous salaries to those who provide them with entertainment and amusement. That applies to everything from baseball players to movie actresses. There is one man who has a salary of over a million dollars. One does not hear any objection to that, but if one endeavours to get a business administration-


Mr. REID:: Who is he?


George Ernest Wood: I will hand the clipping to
the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). It is Mr. L. B. Meyer, of Loew's Incorporated; his salary is over $1,296,000. This news must be authoritative because I cut it out of the Telegram, so that I know hon. members opposite will accept it as- authentic. Much of our difficulty is on account of the fact that although our national income in Canada may be as high as that of any country in the world, there is much unwise spending. It is not for me to say how any man should spend his money, but the fact is that we spend $300,000,000 on automobiles, $150,000,000 on liquor, and $95,000,000 on tobacco, and while I would not pose as a moral reformer, it seems to me that therein
2804	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
lies part of our difficulties, and that the individual could do something to contribute to their solution.
I thank the house for the kind attention they have given me. My only wish was to bring forward my viewpoint as an agriculturist with regard to this vital question.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that, in the words of the resolution-
... it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment. . . .


Mr. McGEER:: Where would the hon.
member get the money to carry on this program?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have heard the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Mc-Geer) give many a dissertation on money, and when it comes to the question as to where we shall get the money I will invite him to state his views.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Will the hon. member subscribe to them?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I said that floods were
not of modern origin, and when I was interrupted I was about to remark that there is danger now of their reaching their maximum crest. We have not yet had a flood of maximum crest in this country, nor has there been one in the United States, but there, the people believe that the last flood on the Ohio river was not very far from that stage. Unless, therefore, we take drastic steps to cope with the situation we shall be faced with very grave danger indeed. In the United States the story of floods on the Ohio goes back to the capture of Fort Duquesne, afterwards named Fort Pitt by the British. After the British had taken that fort they kept records of the heights of floods on the Ohio. Surveying this subject in relation to many of the European countries and throughout America I find that most of the great nations to-day are adopting flood control programs, as well perhaps for the purpose of saving life as for safeguarding property; and another important object is to provide sound employment. It is a means of providing sound employment, because I find that in the United States they are proceeding on a large scale with flood control works. There, a vast program of flood prevention is assisted by the PWA, and at the present time from
200,000	to 300,000 men are engaged in the United States, directly, or indirectly, on these works, to which I shall refer in a moment.


Mr. QUELCH:: They have a different monetary policy from ours.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not going to discuss that question now. Hon. members have dealt with it half a dozen times this session, and so has the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. I have listened to all the speeches on monetary policy. In 1936 the United States
2806	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
government passed their first flood control act, a copy of which I have here. It contains twenty-eight pages setting out various projects, and the estimated cost is 8325,000,000. In 1938 they were so well pleased with what they had done two years previously that they extended their program under a new act containing twelve pages of projects at an estimated cost of $375,000,000, or a total of $700,000,000. These works cover projects in practically every state of the union.
It was my good fortune to travel over a great many of the rivers mentioned in these acts and to survey flood control works erected thereon, and I say to the minister I am convinced that he would be on sound ground if he brought forward a flood control act under his relief program, and proceeded upon a long term program of five or ten years, undertaking to flood-proof the rivers of Canada, commencing with those in the most settled territories and where the greatest damage has been done and the greatest number of lives have been lost. That would be just as sound as the work that has been carried out in the United States, and none of the money invested in these works would be lost. As a matter of fact, in the net result, these works would really cost the country nothing because they would annually save a great deal.
Some may say that there is no reason for floods, but there are many reasons. In the pioneer days our forefathers did not experience the floods that we have to-day, because in those days nature provided against such conditions. The outlets of all the small lakes and swamps were clogged by stumps of trees, brush and so on, and all down the course of the river, running zigzag like a snake, the land was covered with trees. But in these days the river courses have been straightened, the land has been ditched and drained, trees have been cut down and, in short, man has done everything he can to expedite the flow of water off the land into the river bed. God Almighty designed the river beds to carry off a certain amount of water, but man has frustrated this design by cutting down the trees, and so on, and he has done nothing to counteract his own work. These two acts that have been passed in the United States indicate that the people of that nation realize that the time has come for them to restore the defence that man has destroyed; and the time has come in Canada likewise for us to restore by our own works what we have taken away from nature in the way I have described. In carrying out such a program a great deal of employment could be provided. In my judgment it would be sound economic employment, and in the long run it would not cost the

country one dollar, as I shall show when I come to discuss one or two of the results that have so far been attained in the republic to the south of us.
My time is passing, and I wish to present to the best of my ability a plan which I believe the minister would be well advised to follow. Take the city of Belleville. We did not have a flood there this spring, it is true, but last year there was one that cost the people of Belleville $100,000. Belleville is in jeopardy every spring from the Moira river. Take Port Hope. Two years ago they had a flood that cost them about $300,000. Take the Portneuf river, in Quebec. I have a letter here, dated December 19, 1938, from the minister who looks after river and flood control in the province of Quebec, telling me that a number of rivers and creeks there have had disastrous floods; he names the Portneuf, creeks Blondel, Casault, Lemoyne, aux Chien, Sault-a-la-Puce and du Moulin. The loss in these floods last August was estimated at $200,000. The object of flood control is to eliminate such losses. The losses sustained by all these towns, cities and villages and factories annually can be eliminated, and in that way the work will soon pay for itself.
Now to speed along, because I want to present concrete examples in western Ontario that can be taken care of. To lay a basis for my argument let me refer to the Ohio river. Hon. members will recall that in January, 1937 I think, there was a very great flood on the Ohio river, the most disastrous in its history, which caused property damage amounting to $800,000,000, and which took a large number of lives and brought disaster to thousands of homes. I happened to be in Louisville a short time before that flood, and when I read later, that the restaurant in which I dined in a big store like Eaton's or Simpson's, had been flooded up to the second storey, I could hardly believe it. The United States at once decided to eliminate floods on the Ohio river. They had an example to go by. In 1913 there was a great flood on the Miami river-the older members present will remember it,-when the fine city of Dayton was almost swept off the map, 416 people drowned, and the property loss in that river valley exceeded $100,000,000. The communities along that river at once commenced to flood-proof it. They built five great dams and the necessary reservoirs, dams which work automatically. They are open in dry weather, but in the event of flood the gates automatically close and hold the water. Since 1913 the Miami river has carried off the waters from

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
eight major storms, any one of which would have been serious, and one of which would have been much more serious than that of 1913; yet the valley has been flood-proofed and the cities along its banks and the people adjacent thereto have not experienced any damage from floods since 1913. They tell you down there that the money they spent on flood-proofing that river, some $33,000,000, has been paid back to them over and over several times, in addition to the saving of the property and lives of the citizens.
The United States government, observing the splendid results from the flood-proofing of the Miami river, adopted that system of flood-proofing and is applying it to-using an arbitrary number-500 or some such number of streams, as mentioned in these forty pages of the two acts to which I have referred. After the dams are erected and completed, they use the young men in the civilian conservation corps camps for reforesting these reservoirs, which are dry in the dry season, and are used then as parks. They employ thousands of these young men in beautifying these parks which provide accommodation for holding picnics to which multitudes of people go and in which there are many small refreshment booths, which are another means of furnishing employment; in some instances they charge a small fee and in that way there is some return. In flood-proofing the Miami river 4,000 men were employed directly and approximately another 4,000 indirectly. They are now following the same system on thirteen other tributaries of the Ohio. One is the upper source of the Monongahela river. They erected a great dam. That dam is now completed; it is one of fourteen being erected to flood-proof the Ohio river; about 60,000 men are employed in the work directly and probably another 60,000 indirectly in making cement and other supplies and equipment. One dam, the Tygart dam, is 1,880 feet long, of solid concrete, 200 feet through the base and 167 feet high. That is only one of fourteen that they are erecting.
In my judgment employment on that kind of work is a sound investment because it adds to the national wealth. The army engineers at Pittsburgh, tell me that the results from the erection of those dams will produce a saving of perhaps $200,000,000. At that rate it does not take very long to pay for a program that will cost approximately $300,000,000. So this seems to me a sound method to take care oi unemployment. Any hon. member who contemplates motoring down in Ohio in the summer could not do better than visit some of these rivers and see the great works being constructed there. The Muskingum river is
another that for many years caused great losses through floods but has now been made absolutely flood proof.
I refer to these two rivers, the Miami and the Muskingum, because the flood control dams and reservoirs situated on them are comparable with what is needed on the Thames and the Grand rivers in western Ontario. I am glad to know that there is some probability of the Grand river being flood-proofed perhaps in a year's time. That work will give productive employment to many men.
I neglected to say that on the Muskingum river 6,000 men were engaged. On the Tennessee, where I spent some time, I saw
7.000	men at work on one dam. Possibly altogether some 30,000 men were employed flood-proofing the Tennessee, and to-day it is flood-proofed. The total cost will be repaid in a few years by the savings.
To come now to the Grand river, the dams to be erected on that river will, I believe, be situated north of Galt. The watershed of that river north of Galt comprises 1,360 square miles. Any spring, or in summer when there is a heavy rain, a flood might occur. There have occurred on the Grand river floods of such extent that at Galt the flow has been as high as 40,000 cubic feet a second. When such a condition occurs, every industry along the Grand river adjacent to Galt is flooded and men have to be laid off.
Later on if I have time I shall give the cost percentages used in the United States so as to encourage the minister not to be too modest in regard to the amount of money he asks for this work. Unless flood control works are erected on the Grand river there may any year be a flood as great as on the Miami or the Muskingum, where three inches of water fell over the whole watershed in four days. If such a fall occurred in the Grand river basin the flow would not be 40,000 cubic feet a second, it would be 50,000 or 60,000;
50.000	at Galt would be 70,000 at Brantford, and such a flow would wipe the lower end of that city off the map. So I say to the minister: Urge the Ontario government, with which this government offers to cooperate in connection with Grand river works, to speed up the commencement of the Grand river works. One cannot tell what is ahead. A fall of three inches on the Grand River watershed north of Galt would be equivalent to a run-off of about 9,000,000,000 cubic feet of water from that watershed, and when one thinks of that quantity of water flowing down the present course of that river one can picture what would happen to all the works, buildings and so on in the way of a flood like that.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Since it has been proposed that the work on the Grand river should be commenced, why not commence work on the Thames as well? Two years ago there was a flood on the Thames river, of which I have pictures in this small treatise, entitled "Water," I have written on the subject of water. These pictures show the railroads tom up, with railroad cars in the bed of the river. I believe that was the flood in which a doctor from Ingersoll, going out on an errand of mercy, was drowned. At that time I believe the flood was about 40,000 cubic feet a second, if there should be a rainfall over the watershed of the Thames anything like the rainfall that caused the Miami disasters of 1913, every city, village und hamlet between the headwaters of the Thames and its outlet into lake St. Clair would suffer vast damage. So any moneys spent in this way return themselves; or in the words used in this house, the cost will be liquidated within a reasonable length of time. I do not look upon money spent on flood control works as a cost to the country at all. because one flood would cost as much as might be spent on works.
In closing I might mention the ratio adopted in the United States, which I obtained after careful consultation with army engineers. I find that on the flood-proofing of the Muskingum river the United States government, through the PWA assistance, which is a plan to take care of unemployment and which works very well, paid 63-23 per cent of the cost, if my figures are correct. The state and certain interested public services such as the railways, telephone and telegraph companies and so on, paid approximately 25-35 per cent, so that the municipalities had to pay only a little over 11 per cent. I imagine that one of the hold-ups to the work being proceeded with on the Grand river is the fact that the municipalities do not want to undertake the payment of 25 per cent of the cost.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I believe the country
would support the minister if he would recommend to the government that they make the burden easier for the municipalities. Let the government of the day assume a larger proportion of the cost. I do not say what the provincial government should do. This is a national problem, too. Let the federal government. rise to the occasion, as the United States government has done, and assume a greater share of the cost, up to at least 60 per rent. Let them say they are ready to do that, and it will be found that the municipalities along the Grand river, the Thames river, the Portneuf river in Quebec and other rivers 
throughout Canada will take advantage of the opportunity. Then, through a long term program of flood prevention, the government could at once give employment to thousands of men. In my judgment that is one sound way of creating employment. If the minister will bring in anything along that line, even if I am the only man in the house to do so I will support him as strongly as I can on such a program. I have made a most exhaustive survey of this whole subject of flood prevention, and I am thoroughly convinced that it is a sound, economic way to provide employment for Canadians, and that in the long run it will not cost the country a dollar. The cost will be repaid as it has been repaid in the Miami valley of Ohio, and as it will be repaid in the Ohio valley by what they save in annual property losses from floods. Fancy, $300,000,000 to be spent along the Ohio; but when they finish flood-proofing the fourteen branches of the Ohio river they will guarantee that never again will there be a flood on that stream. What a blessing that will be to the people living along the shores of that river! Why, Mr. Speaker, if instead of $300,000,000 they paid $2,000,000,000 it still would be cheap, when one figures that one flood alone cost over $800,000,000!
We must realize, as I said earlier, that on account of the cutting down of our forests and the increased rapidity of drainage from the land, the straightening of the rivers and the elimination of refuse at swamp outlets, which in the pioneer days retarded the flow of water into our rivers, this problem has become greater year by year, and with that in mind one can easily grasp what a blessing it will be to the communities along these rivers if we get on with the job in a big way. These are strenuous, grave times, and I believe the minister and the government would have the backing of the people if they would provide employment in this way. I mentioned several other methods but did not discuss them; one cannot cover everything in forty minutes. It would require four hours to deal with all these different subjects. During thp last forty minutes, however, I think I have set out a sound argument for flood-proofing the rivers of Ontario and Quebec, and T do hope the Grand river works will be proceeded with this summer. Then the minister can go on with other rivers in Ontario and Quebec and go right, across the country, thereby placing many thousands of men at. work.


Mr. JAQUES:: Mr. Speaker-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Speaker-


Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry, but I saw the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) first.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: On a question of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, I rose at the same time the hon. member for Davenport CMr. MacNicol) rose to speak.


Walter Edward Foster: The difficulty in this instance is that there is no official list, and I am bound to recognize those hon. members who have asked the chair to recognize them, ahead of the others.


Norman Jaques: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) indulged in a marathon; but since he merely marked time or at best ran in circles, I cannot congratulate him upon having won it. There was one fortunate result, however; the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman), who followed him, came out of his long sleep, like Rip Van Winkle, and was able to finish the speech which he commenced forty years ago; at least I hope he finished it.
Before sitting down, the hon. member for Greenwood indulged in the usual sneer at the ideas held by those in this corner of the house, without giving any indication of how he proposed to finance the ideas which he presented to the government. I understand the hon. member for Greenwood conducts the largest Bible class in the empire. I would be interested if he could point to one justification in the Bible of lending money at usury, or of charging interest for money. It would seem that teachers and preachers have served their masters better than their Master, because for every critic of sound money there are a tmndred critics of Christianity.
If any hon. members are in doubt as to where money can come from, I would recommend that they sometimes attend the sittings of the committee on banking and commerce. Or is it that they agree with the saying of Professor Soddy. that when the light of scientific truth is directed beyond the affairs of the intellect or even of the soul, to the affairs of the pocket, then the too naked truth is an outrage on all that is fine and respectable.
This debate is on unemployment, and it might be well to make sure just what unemployment is. Would it not be more true to say that it is "unimpayment"? We all know plenty of people who have never done a stroke of work in their lives and never intend to do any. But because they happen to be possessed of money they are classed, not as unemployed, but as highly desirable citizens. The fact is that the crime is not in having no work but in having no money. I remember when I was a young man I was independent, but when I went into a store no
one ever said to me, "Look here, young man, we do not care to take your money; you do not earn it." No, they were glad to get my money, and hoped that I would come in again. Since that time I have done, I believe, a fair share of work, and occasionally I have been in the position of not knowing exactly how I could provide for my family. But nobody ever said to me, "Oh, that is all right, old man. We know you have worked. We will not see you stuck." They did not care twopence whether I worked or not. It is a case of money or starve.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Not always.


Norman Jaques: Apparently the possession of money confers a divinity upon those who possess it. They are not subject to the laws of ordinary mortals who do not possess it. Unemployment is not a disease; it is a symptom of a disease. Employment is like happiness. Happiness is a result of right living. If you go out to look for happiness you are apt to wake up with a bad taste in your mouth and a sore head. You have had a sort of synthetic happiness. I say that when it is urged that you can create work for the sake of work, and if there is an attempt to carry out that idea, we are going to wake up with a very bad head. To say that you can cure the disease by treating the symptom is the equivalent of sending a case of smallpox to the beauty parlour. The disease is not the symptom.
I have heard hon. members, and especially hon. members opposite, say that the reason for unemployment is the provision of relief. In fact I heard one hon. member put the blame for unemployment on the late leader of the Conservative party, because of his introduction of relief measures. While I was not born in Canada I would say on behalf of Canadians that I have yet to meet a Canadian who was too lazy to work. I have met Canadians who refused to work under degrading conditions, and I thank God for such men, because they are the men who stand between us and slavery.
An attempt has been made by the respective parties to place the blame on each other. It is suggested that were the Conservatives in office they could very soon cure our unemployment problem. I am not a politician, nor am I particularly interested in politics, but I am interested in economics. What are the facts? The facts are that the Liberals held office until 1930, and they did nothing, because they could do nothing to stop the depression which caused the unemployment. Then the Conservatives held office for five years. They did their best. It would be unfair to say that
Elections'-Balloting

they lacked ability, because they had the advantage of leadership by one of the ablest and hardest working men in Canada, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. But they could do nothing.
Then, my friends to the immediate right say that they could cure unemployment. Well, we know that on two occasions socialist governments held office in England, but they could do nothing. In fact I think they made rather a worse mess of it than the others had done. Then all three got together to form a national government-


Angus MacInnis: No, no.


Norman Jaques: Well, that is what I would say. It was a nationalist government headed by the Right Hon. Ramsay MacDonald, with a socialist chancellor of the exchequer. But they could do nothing. In fact they brought the country to the verge of revolution.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 65, to ratify and confirm the agreement respecting the joint use by Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Midland Railway Company of Manitoba of certain tracks and premises of Canadian Pacific Railway Company at Winnipeg, Manitoba-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 66, to incorporate the Canada board of American missions of the United Lutheran Church in America.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Constance Lillian Talbot Mais Pocock.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Edith Cecilia Shaw Mayne.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Leslie William Bond.-Mr. Walsh.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
The house in committee on Bill No. 11, respecting balloting on questions of national importance.-Mr. Church.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take more than a few minutes, but I wish to- refer to the report of the committee which recommended that this bill be not proceeded with.

The principle of the bill is to trust the people. I think the committee might well have recommended the submission of plebiscites so as to cany out the principle of trusting the people on matters of national policy in domestic affairs. If parliament has this power it should be exercised, not in foreign affairs, but in domestic matters such as constitutional and parliamentary reform. For example, the statute of Westminster should have been submitted to the people. It would have been defeated. Other questions that might well foe submitted would be overgovernment, over-taxation, unemployment insurance. Had this bill been enacted into law and plebiscites on these questions submitted to the people, we should not have the over-government and over-taxation that we have to-day, nor would we have the railway policy and the huge railway deficits that we have to-day. Other questions that might well be submitted to the people by a plebiscite would be senate reform, important treaties, radio broadcasting matters and other domestic questions.
While this bill may not now be enacted into law, I trust that the government will consider enacting legislation that will permit the people to decide by their votes these important domestic questions on the same day as they vote in a general election. Had we had such legislation twenty years ago, we would long ago have had unemployment insurance and a redistribution of the work of parliament between the two houses so that one chamber would not be on vacation half of the session, we would have had senate reform, and long ago we would have had a solution of our wheat and coal problems and a national policy with respect to both these products.
While the report of the committee was not printed, I think it would be in the public interest to have the discussion in the committee printed, and I trust that the committee on printing will consider that suggestion.
There is no machinery at present by which a specific question relating to domestic matters can foe submitted to the people. There is simply a general appeal on opposing policies at the time of a general election, and to submit a specific question on matters such as I have mentioned special legislation and a separate act of parliament are required. Our electoral laws are away behind the times and should be brought up to date. I hope that in the next parliament this question will be raised again. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, in view of the committee's report that the bill be not proceeded with, I now ask leave to withdraw it.
Bill withdrawn.

Privy Council Appeals



SUPREME COURT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George) moved the second reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Supreme Court Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as there seems to be some misapprehension with regard to the terms of this bill, I wish to state that its terms are different from those of the bill which I introduced last session.
The first section repeals section 54 of the Supreme Court Act, chapter 35 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, and substitutes the following therefor:
54. (1) The supreme court shall have, hold and exercise exclusive ultimate appellate civil and criminal jurisdiction within and for Canada; and the judgment of the court shall, in all cases, be final and conclusive.
(2)	Notwithstanding any royal prerogative or anything contained in any act of the parliament of the United Kingdom or any act of the parliament of Canada or any act of the legislature of any province of Canada or any other statute or law, no appeal shall lie or be brought from any court now or hereafter established within Canada to any court of appeal, tribunal or authority by which, in the United Kingdom, appeals or petitions to his majesty in council may be ordered to be heard.
(3)	The Judicial Committee Act, 1833 chapter forty-one of the statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, 1833, and The Judicial Committee Act, 1844, chapter sixty-nine of the statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, 1844, and all orders, rules or regulations made under the said acts are hereby repealed in so far as the same are part of the law of Canada.
Another section provides:
2.	Nothing in this act shall affect any application for special leave to appeal or any appeal to his majesty in council made or pending at the date of the coming into force of this act.
The third section provides:
3.	This act shall come into force upon a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council published in the Canada Gazette.
Mr. Speaker, section 101 of the British North America Act, 1867, enacts that:
101. The parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this act, from time to time provide for the constitution, maintenance and organization of a general court of appeal for Canada, and tor the establishment of any additional courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada.
Pursuant to the powers thus conferred upon the parliament of Canada to provide for the constitution, maintenance and organization of a general court of appeal for Canada, parliament in 1875, by 38 Victoria, chapter 11, enacted the Supreme Court Act. which now appears as chapter 35 of the Revised Statutes
of Canada, 1927. This statute, in section 35, established the Supreme Court of Canada with "an appellate, civil and criminal jurisdiction throughout the Dominion of Canada."
This bill proposes to extend that section 35 by providing that "the supreme court shall have, hold and exercise exclusive ultimate jurisdiction within and for Canada," and then proceeds to abolish all appeals from any court now or hereafter established in Canada, to any court of appeal, tribunal or authority by which in the United Kingdom, appeals or petitions to his majesty in council may be heard.	.
Prior to 1833 the sovereign, by virtue of his royal prerogative, from time to time, by way of special leave, granted appeals from various courts in the plantations, colonies and other dominions of his majesty abroad, to his majesty in council, or in other words to the government of the United Kingdom.
Such appeals to his majesty in council were first regulated by statute by the Judicial Committee Act, 1833. The Judicial Committee Act, 1844, subsequently enacted that her majesty in council was competent by order to provide for the admission of appeals from "any judgments, sentences, decrees or orders of any court of justice within any British colony or possession abroad".
That act of the parliament of the United Kingdom still applies to the "British colony or possession" now known as the Dominion of Canada, and, under its terms, the government of the United Kingdom, on the advice of its judicial committee, may provide for and grant special leave to appeal to his majesty in council from the judgment of any county court, court of sessions or magistrate's court within Canada.
The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, which was enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom two years before the enactment of the British North America Act 1867, precluded the parliament of Canada from repealing or amending either of the two judicial committee acts which I have mentioned.
However, sections 2 and 3 of the statute of Westminster (1931) have now removed the fetters which the Colonial Laws Validity Act had previously placed upon the legislative jurisdiction of this and other dominions.
This bill, provided that it is within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament, will vest in his majesty's Supreme Court of Canada, instead of in his majesty's privy council at Westminster, that is, in the government of the United Kingdom, exclusive and ultimate appellate jurisdiction within and for Canada in civil and criminal matters.
Privy Council Appeals
[Stage Direction]
For my own part, I fervently favour that imperial connection which is established by our allegiance to the crown and by Canada's membership, as an autonomous dominion, in the British commonwealth of nations, but nevertheless, I am fully persuaded that the continuance of Canada's amicable relations and good understanding with the government of the United Kingdom will best be promoted by the repeal, so far as applicable to this dominion, of such imperial statutes as, the Judicial Committee Acts, which now confer upon the government of the United Kingdom the political authority and the legal right to intervene, at its discretion, in the administration and enforcement of the laws of Canada. Such intervention the people of an autonomous dominion, in my opinion, should not continue to tolerate.
The more free the people of Canada are from the officious intervention in our domestic affairs by the government of the United Kingdom, the more readily will our people assume and fulfil the duties and responsibilities which are implied in our continued membership in the British commonwealth.
From the communications which I have personally received, I am convinced that public opinion throughout Canada is favourable to this bill. I have, however, received definite notes of warning from those whose legal learning and business experience command respect.
It is suggested that in all prospective constitutional changes it is advisable to proceed slowly and, so far as reasonably possible, to make sure that the reform legislation proposed is within the legislative jurisdiction of parliament.
I have, therefore, provided that this measure, when enacted by parliament, shall come into force only by proclamation of the governor in council; and I trust that the government will, at the earliest convenient date, refer this measure to the supreme court and thence to the judicial committee for an advisory opinion as to its constitutional validity. At such hearings both at Ottawa and at London, the attorneys general of the several provinces will be able to appear and present their views or their objections, if any, to the bill, in its entirety or in part.
Those corresponding with me have expressed a profound regret that the present chief justice of Canada, than whom no Canadian judge ever more fully enjoyed the respect, confidence and esteem of the Canadian people, is about to retire on account of the age limit prescribed by statute.
But since that correspondence was received by me, public apprehension on this account

will be relieved upon the enactment of a bill now before parliament for an extension for three years of the term of office of the present chief justice.
Moreover, there is also a widespread regret that physical frailties preclude two or more other justices from that active and onerous participation in judicial work which their official duties really demand.
There is serious concern in the province of which I am one of the representatives in this house that important issues concerning the interpretation of the civil code of Quebec may be left under present circumstances to the final decision of a quorum of judges, none of whom has been appointed from the bar of that province.
I am persuaded therefore that public opinion will not be billy satisfied until, in due time, the government shall have taken effective measures to change, increase and strengthen the present personnel of the supreme court, so that, when invested with exclusive and ultimate appellate jurisdiction, the members of that court may have and enjoy the full confidence of the Canadian people.
It is therefore important, I think, that this bill should proceed to a stage which will permit the government to refer the question of its validity to the Supreme Court of Canada and thence to the judicial committee of his majesty in council; and, though this is a private member's bill and entitled to no special privileges, I earnestly request the cooperation to that end of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and of all hon. members of this house.
It will otherwise be futile for hon. members to discuss, night after night as opportunity arises, the supreme legal issue, as to whether the bill in its present form is within the legislative jurisdiction of parliament, as only the judicial committee may render a conclusive opinion on that issue.
When this bill has been referred by the government to the Supreme Court of Canada and the final judgment of the judicial committee has been rendered on such reference, then and then only may this parliament deal intelligently with the provisions of this bill; and then effective measures may forthwith be taken to reconstruct the Supreme Court of Canada and readjust its personnel, as public opinion assuredly demands. Thereafter, a bill similar to this or one which conforms to the final judgment of the judicial committee may be enacted at a future session of parliament and brought into force by order in council.

Privy Council Appeals
I therefore move the second reading of the bill in the hope that I may enlist the cooperation of the Minister of Justice who undoubtedly prefers a bill in this form, in securing a reference to the supreme court and to the judicial committee for a final opinion as to whether the bill is within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament.
Mr. L. P. A. ROBICHAUD (Kent, N.B.):: Yesterday I got the notion, perhaps a foolish one, that I would take part in the discussion of this bill, but only to-day did I make up my mind definitely on the point and I am sorry that I have not set down in writing what I have to say. I trust the house will bear with me in the few disjointed and possibly laboured remarks I shall make.
I am in complete agreement with the principle of the bill, and I think it is unfortunate that such a law could not have been enacted at the time of confederation. The result has been, in my opinion, constitutional malaise and uncertainty in the country. Frankly, as far as I can see, the judicial committee has narrowly interpreted the Canadian constitution in the mistaken belief that by curtailing the powers of the central government to the advantage of the provincial governments it was strengthening, or at any rate preventing the loosening of, the ties that bind this dominion to the mother country. For that reason the judicial committee has given exaggerated powers to the provinces, so much so that the provinces to-day look upon this parliament as simply their creature.
I would direct hon. members to the Ferguson memorandum which was sent to the Right Hon. R. B.-Bennett in 1930, and in which is quoted part of a judgment by Lord Watson in a certain case. I quote:
The object of the act was neither to weld the provinces into one nor to subordinate provincial governments to a central authority, but to create a federal government in which they should all be represented, entrusted with the exclusive administration of affairs in which they had a common interest, each province retaining its independence and autonomy. . . . But, in so far as regards these matters which, by section 92, are specially reserved for provincial legislation, the legislature of each province continues to be free from the control of the dominion and as supreme as it was before the passing of the act.
In the case of Hodge v. the Queen, Sir Barnes Peacock, delivering the opinion of the board, said:
When the British North America Act enacted that there should be a legislature for Ontario, and that its legislative assembly should have
exclusive authority to make laws for the province and for provincial purposes in relation tc the matters enumerated in section 92, it conferred powers not in any sense to be exercised by delegation from or as agents of the imperial parliament, but authority as plenary and as ample within the limits prescribed by section 92, as the imperial parliament in the plenitude of its power possessed and could bestow.
Within the limits of subject and area, the local legislature is supreme and has the same authority as the imperial parliament or the parliament of the dominion.
To my mind it is not so. How can a provincial legislature be said to be supreme, even in its own limited field of legislative powers conferred upon it by section 92, when the dominion governor in council can disallow any of the laws of the provinces, even those that come within the limited scope of provincial legislative jurisdiction? I contend that the provinces cannot be said to be as supreme as the imperial parliament. As I say, the provinces have come to look upon the dominion parliament as their creature and to regard themselves as legally supreme. But let us refer to the British North America Act. How can it be said that the provinces created the dominion parliament, that the dominion parliament is simply their creature, when as a matter of fact, at the time this parliament was created, the provinces were not yet born as legal entities? They existed as territorial entities, but as legal entities they were still unborn, and they were as much created	by	this	act as was	the dominion
parliament. In fact the dominion parliament comes first; it was the first-born, so to speak, and then came the provinces as legal entities.
Let me quote section 3:
It shall be lawful for the queen, by and with the advice of her majesty's most honourable privy council, to declare by proclamation that, on and	after a	day therein	appointed, notbeing more than six months after the passing of this	act,	the	provinces of	Canada, Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick-
Only three provinces; Quebec did not exist as a province nor did Ontario. How, therefore, could	the	provinces be	said to have
created a legal entity when they themselves did not at that time exist?
-shall form and be one dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after that day those three provinces shall form and be one dominion under the name accordingly.
Listen to section 4:
The subsequent provisions of this act shall . . . commence and have effect on and after the union, that is to say, on and after the day appointed for the union taking effect in the queen's proclamation. . . .
Privy Council Appeals

It will be observed that Canada as a legal entity was first created in section 3, and in section 5 the provinces were likewise created. Section 5 reads:
Canada shall be divided into four provinces, named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Then section 6 provides:
The parts of the province of Canada (as it exists at the passing of this act) . . . shall be deemed to be severed, and shall form two separate provinces.
That is, the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Then section 7:
The provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall have the same limits as at the passing of this act.
The same territorial limits; but at the same time they were created as legal entities after the creation of this central legal entity. The only way in which they could be said, collectively, to be the father of this parliament is, to use an illustration, in the way a grain of wheat might be said to be the father of the ripened ear. These three provinces were first destroyed as legal entities and recreated; so that, so to speak, of three grains of wheat five blades sprouted from the one root-the dominion parliament and four provinces, one province being split into two.
Another illustration: Suppose Nova Scotia at the time of confederation were represented by the East block, New Brunswick by the Langevin block, Ontario and Quebec-being one province, Canada-by the West block. How did they create this main block out of those three blocks? Did they pick out a stone here and there? No; they demolished those three blocks and out of the heaps of stones that remained they built first this main block, afterward they rebuilt the East block, representing Nova Scotia, on a much smaller scale, and the Langevin block, representing New Brunswick, likewise on a smaller scale, and of the West block they made two blocks, Ontario and Quebec.
After all, to my mind the constitution is not a dead organ; it is a living organism, which grows with the body which it animates, and the only way in which we shall ever grow to be a country is by looking at it in that way.
On the second question, whether we have the legislative power to pass this proposed bill, section 101 no doubt is the section that gives the power if there is any power given. But it might be argued, and I suppose at one time it was argued, that this section does not give the power to create a court of appeal in all respects. It was read by my predecessor; it says:
The parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this act, from time to time,

provide for the constitution, maintenance, and organization of a general court of appeal for Canada, and for the establishment of any additional courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada.
I wonder if those three words "laws of Canada" apply to the first part, the organizing of a court of appeal, as well as to the latter part.
Referring to the Quebec resolution, one provision was this: "The establishment of a general court of appeal for the federated provinces." But the London resolution read differently. It said, "The establishment of a general court of appeal for the confederation." I say that it could have been argued at one time that this general court of appeal wras simply to hear appeals on cases that arose out of dominion laws, not provincial law's. But I think the question has been settled by a case decided by the privy council in 1908, the case of Crown Grain Company v. Day. It was a matter of a lien under a provincial statute; the provincial legislature had attempted to take away the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; the grain company appealed and were given the right to appeal to the privy council, and the privy council decided that the provincial legislature had not the power to take aw'ay that right of appeal.
Finally the statute of Westminster is the one that really gives us the right and power to pass this bill. The statute of Westminster gives us the power to repeal any act of the United Kingdom applying to the dominion.
Now I am rushing to the end. To come to the third consideration, does this bill go far enough to give the right which it purports to give? With all due deference to the draftsman of this bill, I have my doubts. Subsection 3 of section 1 of new section 54 purports to repeal only the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, the Judicial Committee Act, 1844, and all orders, rules and regulations made under the said acts. But may I remark that the Judicial Committee Act was not the act which created the right of appeal from the dominion to the imperial courts. That act simply regulated the mode of appeal. We should perhaps go behind that act and repeal as well the commissions or letters patent or whatever instrument gave the right in the first place. I think if we repealed only the Judicial Committee Act, which deals only with regulating the mode of appeal we would not be going far enough, because I see that the explanatory note says:
. . . from the decisions of various courts of judicature in the East Indies and in the plantations, colonies and other dominions of his majesty abroad, an appeal lies to his majestr in council.

Privy Council Appeals
Before that, there was the word "whereas"- "whereas an appeal lies." So that the right of appeal must have been created before the date of this act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman will look at the act of 1S33 and study it he will find that that act and the act of 1844 and their amendments are the only imperial statutes in existence under which an appeal lies.


Louis-Prudent-Alexandre Robichaud: I have the statute right before me, and it refers to other previous acts dealing with appeals to his majesty in council and goes on to recite that "whereas'' so and so, and "whereas there is now the right of appeal to his majesty in council." Then it goes on to regulate the mode of appeal, as explained in the explanatory note. I think there is a question there, and perhaps that section should be enlarged to go behind the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, and to repeal anything that came before.
I shall vote for the second reading of this bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, when the
similar bill, not exactly as this one, was introduced last year by the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan), I gave my views rather extensively at that time, said I was in agreement with the principle of the bill, and even suggested that it should go further than it did and do away with appeals of all judgments from any court in Canada to his majesty in council. But I suggested that this matter should be left for further study and investigation not only by hon. members of this house but by legal associations and bodies in the country. And the matter was left over until this year.
In this bill my hon. friend has incorporated the suggestion I made last year when we discussed the bill he then introduced, and I am free to say that I am personally in entire accord with the substance and the form of my hon.' friend's bill. Personally I have no doubt that this parliament has complete jurisdiction to do away with appeals to any other tribunal than the final court of appeal in Canada, that is the Supreme Court of Canada, because of the residuary powers which this parliament has to legislate on any matters, of peace, order and good government, as well as under section 101 of the British North America Act. As the privy council itself said in the British Coal Corporation case:
. . . such appeals seem to be essentially matters of Canadian concern, and the control and regulation of such appeals thus seem to be a prime element in Canadian sovereignty as appertaining to matters of justice. . . .
There is no doubt that the provinces have no jurisdiction to abolish appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada and still less, or equally, they have no power to do away with appeals to the privy council, because under section 92 of the British North America Act the administration of justice, including procedure, in the province is left to the province; but it is limited to within the province and, as the courts have decided, the provinces have no authority to abolish appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada because it is without the limits of the provinces. If we have in Canada full jurisdiction it is clear, as I have said, that it is the parliament of Canada that has the power to establish a final court of appeal under section 101 of the British North America Act as well as under the residuary powers which this parliament possesses. There is no doubt as to the power to abolish appeals in any matters within the competence of the parliament of Canada; but, as the former leader of the opposition said last year, he had some doubts whether or not we had full power to do away with appeals from provincial courts. This doubt has been expressed also by some.writers; and as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has said, in such an important matter it is essential that there should be no doubt whatever as to the jurisdiction and powers of parliament to deal with the matter.
My hon. friend has suggested that his bill should be given second reading and that it might then be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada and even to the privy council as to the power of this parliament to enact it. I have been told that some members of this house approve the suggestion that the supreme court and the privy council should pass on the jurisdiction of this parliament in the matter but that they would prefer to have this reference made before they are called upon to vote on the principle of the bill. Under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act we may refer the question of the constitutionality of any legislation, whether federal or provincial, to the supreme court. Paragraph (d) of section 55 reads:
. . . the powers of the parliament of Canada, or of the legislatures of the provinces, or of the respective governments thereof, whether or not the particular power in question has been or is proposed to be exercised. . . .
My intention, therefore, is to recommend to the governor in council that this power be used and the bill referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for the purpose of ascertaining the jurisdiction and powers of this parliament to enact the proposed legislation. I
Privy Council Appeals

intend to have this done in the very near future, so that when the matter comes before parliament again there will be no doubt whether or not we have the right to deal with it.' Therefore, having come to this conclusion, I think I should move the adjournment of the debate in order that the bill may remain on the order paper until the end of the session, and as soon as possible the reference will be made. I accept the suggestion of my hon. friend in this amended form. Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker-


Walter Edward Foster: The motion for the
adjournment of the debate is not debatable.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a question of
privilege and a point of order. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is usually very fair, but I want to speak in opposition to this bill, and was promised five or ten minutes, and now, after making an address, the minister moves the adjournment of the debate, virtually shutting off all discussion of those opposed. He wants to strike out section 129 of the British North America Act altogether.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms on second readings of private bills. This has been turned into a public bill, but now the Minister of Justice exercises his right to move the adjournment of the debate, which I think is a very unfair procedure, to shut off any discussion. The attorney general of Ontario is absolutely opposed to this bill; so are most members of the bar and I believe the people of the province of Ontario, but now the government wants to shut off discussion. It is most unfair. Is there any free speech in this parliament? The Minister of Justice smiles and laughs.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: I have the floor, I think, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Edward Foster: Is the hon. member speaking to the bill or to the point of order? I understand the point the hon. member has raised, but the minister has moved the adjournment of the debate and the motion is not debatable. The bill remains on the order paper, however, and no doubt can be discussed on some future occasion.


Thomas Langton Church: This is just some more separatism. Why do you not get out of the empire altogether?
Motion (Mr. Lapointe, Quebec East) agreed to and debate adjourned.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Norman McL. Rogers (Minister of Labour) that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress and for such purpose to authorize the execution of undertakings in the general interest of Canada and requisite for the purposes of the act, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, and also to provide financial assistance to the provinces by way of loan, advance or guarantee, out of unappropriated moneys in the -consolidated revenue fund, and for the appointment of necessary officers, clerks and employees.
Norman Jaques: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was saying that no democratic government had cured what we call unemployment. I had said that the Conservative government, the socialist government, and the nationalist government made up of Liberals, Conservatives and socialists, had utterly failed to cure unemployment in Great Britain. It will be remembered that in 1930 the May commission was appointed. The policy recommended and adopted by the then government in Great Britain was one of drastic economy, to stay on the gold standard. The result was to bring the country to the verge of revolution and to force it off gold.
If there is any doubt as to the fundamental causes of what we call unemployment-and I am referring not to seasonal unemployment, but to unemployment as we know it to-day- I shall quote a passage by Mr. R. G. Hawtrey. I have quoted it before, but it is worth quoting again. Mr. Hawtrey is secretary of the British treasury and the author of a book entitled The Art of Central Banking. He says this:
The common factor in pre-war, and postwar, experience is the intimate association of the state of trade with the enlargements and compressions of consumers' income and outlay effected by central banks. If this fundamental causal sequence were understood, the public would hardly acquiesce in the central banks proceeding from their position of complacent detachment to generate depressions, unemployment, bankruptcy, budget deficits and defaults, with all the resulting political and social convulsions while government after government is broken because it can neither stem the flood of ruin nor even provide tolerable palliatives to alleviate the consequences.
Surely Mr. R. G. Hawtrey is an authority of whom this house may take notice. Why is it that when we are told by men whose know-

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
ledge is second to none that the fundamental cause of our difficulties is monetary or financial, every group in the house, with the exception of this little group in the corner, refuses to face the facts? Why is it that as soon as we mention money there are would-be funny remarks from all over the house? Last night the hon. member whom I believe to be the official Liberal economist referred to this group as scrip teasers.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Norman Jaques: "Hear, hear," says a member. If we are confronted with a war in the near future, as we may be, I challenge that member or any other member to rise m his place and say that the policies which will have to be adopted then are scrip teasing.
Let us consider the condition of Great Britain in 1930. There were millions of unemployed. and most drastic economies to save the country and the nation. Every social service, including old age pensions and the dole, was cut down. All those services were cut to the bone, until the very sailors in the navy mutinied. But when the country was threatened by bombers of the enemy, did they insist upon drastic economies? No. Then it was a case of building up the armaments of the country to meet the common enemy. Did anyone then say, "Where is the money to come from?"


William Henry Golding: But we are still paying for it.


Norman Jaques: That is because of the financial system; there is no other reason. Will anyone here say it is impossible to issue debt-free money? Why do not some of these members attend the meetings of the committee on banking and commerce, if they do not believe us? What we in this corner of the house have said is endorsed by all competent and honest financial authorities in the world, including the governor of our own Bank of Canada.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is possible to issue debt-free money, but it might not be wise.


John Horne Blackmore: It might be wise, too.


Norman Jaques: One might have said that
when man took off on his first flight. If someone had not made the first flight we would still be on the ground. We hear a great deal about putting men to work. To my mind, and to those of my colleagues, that smacks of Hitlerism. We do not like the idea of putting men to work. What we say is that we should adapt and alter the existing financial system so that we can provide opportunities whereby people may put themselves to work-and that is a very different matter.
Let me add that any work to which people are put is not likely to result in benefit to those who do the work. I would say that millions of people in the world to-day have been put to work making munitions, but 1 do not think that the most ardent "putter-to-work" will claim that the result of those admirable occupations is likely to end with very much satisfaction to those making the munitions. To some extent it has healed the unemployment problem in Great Britain.
Why is money available to make munitions but not available for purposes of peace? Any bank manager will say that there are no good borrowers, and that there is no use in lending money to industry because industry cannot sell what it produces. In other words the producer cannot recover his costs. But if you can work the people up into a state of mind where they are thoroughly frightened of what the enemy may do to them you can borrow money, and the banks will very kindly create it and lend it to the country, knowing very well that the people will consent to any amount of taxation to secure protection. That was the reason why the city of London imposed the policy of deflation and retrenchment. Poverty did not threaten them. But when the bombs of the enemy threatened the city of London we heard no more about economy.


William Henry Golding: That is not a fair statement.


Norman Jaques: It is a perfectly fair statement.


William Henry Golding: They are using money
for the people all the time.


Norman Jaques: Yesterday the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) said: "We do not want to do this thing in the easy way recommended by the group in the corner, but we want to do it in the good old British way."


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Do not quote the hon.
member for Greenwood.


Norman Jaques: Old England, as we used to call it. is no longer old England; it is old Jerusalem, the home of the Shylocks.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Steady, steady.


Norman Jaques: When we consider that no
government has attempted to cure or even to alleviate in any real sense this problem of unemployment, I find it hard to believe that any member of the house is naive enough to believe that there is any intention of curing it. The financial policy is simply part and parcel of a policy of rationalization. If anyone has any doubts of that may I remind the house
2818	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
how the . most exalted person was thrown on the scrap-heap for saying that something should be done for those who were already on the scrap-heap; and such being his fate, what fate can be expected by those who dare to challenge the power of finance to-day? Of course, we in this corner have nothing to lose in position, so all they can do to us is to tiy ridiculing us. But increasing number of people both in Great Britain and in Canada are becoming more and more aware of where the trouble is; unless the world is overwhelmed by some disaster in the meantime, these people are going to see that their ideas are carried out, and here in Canada they are going to see that this parliament shall solve our problems and no longer remain under the command of international financiers as it is to-day.
What is the real trouble with the world to-day? Some say that we need moral rearmament, I say that the trouble with the world to-day is that we are no longer ruled by human beings; we are ruled by institutions, and means have been elevated above the end. A machine or an institution has no soul and no responsibility, and when I say that machinery and plants are scrapped, human beings are scrapped along with them because we are controlled, not by human beings, but by institutions. I should like any hon. member who follows me in this debate or addresses the house between now and the end of the session to explain why it is that in peace-time we must remain under a policy of what is called sound money that results in the conditions we have to-day; yet at the very first threat of war all ideas of sound money are forgotten and the government has to adopt the very method which we in this corner propose. Why is that? It is because in war-time canons of sound finance are silenced by the cannons of the enemy.
The hon. member for Greenwood suggested a dozen or so ideas for the government to adopt. I am not saying that they were not good ideas because any idea that would be helpful is a good one, but nobody outside this corner has any suggestion to offer as to how those ideas are to be financed.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Good for you.


Norman Jaques: No one else suggests a method by which those ideas are to be financed.
We are told that there cannot be a shortage of money because production is at the same time consumption, and orthodox economics is, I think, founded on that very idea. I forget the exact words which Mill used-no doubt the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) is more

familiar with them than I am-but they were to the effect that, were you to double production you would automatically double consumption. I never learned economics until I was old enough to think for myself. Thank God I was spared that fate; my mind was not warped or twisted by being told a lot of palpable untruths before I had formed the habit of thinking for myself.
We who follow Douglas say that there must be a chronic shortage of purchasing power. Douglas says that the rate of flow of prices must be greater than the rate of flow of purchasing power, and I remember last session seeing nearly the whole cabinet in fits of laughter over that doctrine. Let me put it in this way. Orthodox finance says that that is impossible, that there cannot be any shortage of money because production is consumption. All right, let me give an illustration. Every person who is born must die; therefore deaths must equal births; therefore, by the argument of the orthodox it is impossible for the population to increase. But it does increase. How does it increase? Just as Douglas says it increases, because the rate of flow of births is greater than the rate of flow of deaths. Perhaps some hon. member can detect a flaw in that argument. If he can I shall be interested to hear what it is. Let me repeat it. Everybody who is born must die; therefore deaths must equal births; therefore there cannot be any increase in the population. But we know that the population does increase. How does it do it? Merely because the rate of flow of births is greater than the rate of flow of deaths. So there the A plus B theorem is proved, and if it is true there, it is true in the application which Douglas makes of it. It is a little harder to see, but it is there just the same.
I am not blaming this or any other government. I know that no government and no combination of governments can effect any real cure of our troubles until there is a fundamental change in our financial system. What we must do is so to alter that system that anything physically possible and desirable becomes financially possible. That is so in time of war. We can do as we please then. Nobody ever says that we cannot afford to enlist any more soldiers or that we cannot make any more shells or ammunition because we have no more money. And let it not be thought that war is financed out of taxation. True, taxes rise, but the money is first distributed and then taxed back.
I will make a very simple suggestion which could be acted upon at any time the house cared to do so. Since there are more men than jobs, and since thousands of old people

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
who have earned a bit of leisure are still working, while thousands of young people are wearing out their hearts looking for jobs, why not pension off the older people and make room for the younger ones? What we have to do is not to put people to work but to provide careers for the young people, and if we remove a sufficient number of the older workers we shall make room for younger ones. I shall be asked, how are you going to do it? Well, from my point of view it is quite simple with the set-up we have, with the central bank and the power over that bank which is possessed by this house. All we have to do is to pension off those over sixty. I do not say we should force them to retire, because some men are more valuable at sixty than they are at thirty, but let those who are doing physical work and are under physical handicaps have an opportunity to retire and enjoy a little leisure; reduce the old age pension age to sixty and make the pension worth while, at least thirty dollars a month, and do not pay for it out of taxation; for that does no good; create the money and pay the pensioners with debt-free, state-created money. You will thus achieve a double benefit: you will make room for numbers of young people, and you will reward thousands who have worked a lifetime and have earned some leisure. This could be done through the extra purchasing power so distributed. It would not constitute a debt; that would be useless, because when money is issued as a debt it has to be collected and paid back with interest. I should be interested to hear one of the economists in this house who is outside our group explain just where that interest comes from. It is a question which I have never heard answered. If the people of Canada borrow, let us say, one hundred dollars, they get only one hundred dollars. How then do they pay back one hundred dollars with interest? Where does the interest come from? No man in Canada is allowed to create one cent of money. When I was farming I was told, "Why. that is simple."


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I think the hon. member is getting a little away from the subject matter of the resolution. The resolution is on the subject of unemployment.


Norman Jaques: I do not wish to dispute your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I do not see how it is possible to separate the problem of unemployment from the problem of finance. When you say one you say the other.


Mr. SPENCE:: Just for about two minutes, now.


Norman Jaques: Yes, I believe I have only two or three minutes.


Walter Edward Foster: There will be another time when the hon. member will have an opportunity to explain all his theories on the subject of finance.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Go ahead.


Norman Jaques: I will simply conclude what I was saying, and suggest that the government lower the pension age to sixty and try this experiment. We shall be told that this will cause inflation. But can it be worse than what we have now? And, with the few millions which it will cost, is there any possibility of inflation? There is none. Why not try it? Surely we are in a desperate enough condition. Why not try that simple experiment which has already been tried and has worked. It was tried in the island of Guernsey. It worked; there was no inflation. If a little island like Guernsey could stand it, surely a country as big as Canada can stand it. Pension off these old people; give the young ones a chance to find a career for themselves; give them an opportunity to marry and raise children to populate this country. Surely for Canada there is no better stock than that raised by Canadians themselves. Why say that we cannot afford to have families and that in order to populate the country we must go to Europe and bring back people some of whom it takes generations to make into good Canadians? Why not give our young people a chance, and at the same time lower the pension age and pay for the experiment with debt-free, state-created money? Surely conditions warrant that very small experiment. Are the authorities afraid to introduce the principle because when it was found to work on this small scale it would have to be enlarged until all our financing would be done with national, debt-free money? Is there any better solution? The only time the Founder of our religion lost His temper was when He drove the money-changers out of the temple, and His words were, "The love of money is the root of all evil."


William Henry Golding: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Norman Jaques: Certainly. Any number of them.


William Henry Golding: Does the hon. member really think that if his theory or policy were put into effect, all poverty and all unemployment would be banished? Does he believe that?


Norman Jaques: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would not call our ideas "theories"-	-


William Henry Golding: Well, whatever they are.
2820	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Norman Jaques: -(because they have been tried before. Neither would I say that we could put everybody to work because there seems to be a desire here to do so. The real aim and benefit of science is not to create more work; it should be to create more leisure.


William Henry Golding: But does the hon. member think that-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I cannot permit a discussion to go on regarding the financial system of this country. This is not the proper time to debate the question.


Norman Jaques: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I may answer this one question, personally I am perfectly sure that the experiment would succeed, although I realize that I cannot expect everybody to share my certainty. But is it not worth trying on a small scale to see what it would do? Surely it could not make conditions worse.


William Henry Golding: The reason why I asked that question is this. Centuries ago the Master said, "The poor ye have always with you."


John Charles Landeryou: He said that in condemnation. So long as we have Liberals, that is right.


William Henry Golding: So that if the hon. member's policy were put into effect he says that statement would no longer be true.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I cannot allow this discussion to go any further.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Earlier in the session I took occasion to congratulate the hon. member for Yukon (Mrs. Black), a member of the official opposition, upon a wonderfully constructive speech she made with respect to certain regional matters affecting the country, and to-night I wish in all sincerity to compliment the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) upon the excellent contribution he made this afternoon to this debate when he tried to make certain suggestions looking to a solution of the problem that faces the country at the present time.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: He did not say how he would pay for it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would request my hon. friends to keep the peace for a while and stick to their own philosophy. I do not think the people of Alberta will be fooled much longer.


John Charles Landeryou: There is less unemployment there.
.Mr. BRADETTE: The question before the house to-night is not merely national in its scope, it is universal; it is a question that

will call for all the energy and the attention not only of members of parliament but of every Canadian citizen.
Before I proceed to discuss that question may I pay one more compliment, a greatly deserved one, to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). If ever there was a man who was really humanitarian, a man who put his heart, his talents and his whole soul into an effort to try to solve a problem as great as the one that faces the government to-day, that man is the present Minister of Labour. I feel perfectly free to make that statement because I happen to have had some personal contact with the previous Minister of Labour, and I can say that on many occasions he told me how difficult the task was, not to solve the problem, but to tackle it from every angle. I believe the people of Canada fully realize that the present Minister of Labour is doing his utmost to provide a solution for a problem which, as I say, extends beyond the boundaries of the nation and is universal.
We are in a position to-day to study the situation as it affects the world at large and the experiments that have been made in regard to that problem. I am going to discuss for a short time what has been done in the United States. Owing to the fact that there is a democratic government in that country, the United States is a sort of glass hive, and we can see the functioning of the administration there. At the head of that administration is one of the greatest presidents that country has ever had; he is one of the greatest men this world has known; a courageous man, a man with high ideals, and a man who previously had taken an active part in the public life of the American people, having been for many years governor of the state of New York. He was elected by a huge majority and his motto during the election was to fight for the so-called "forgotten man," and to improve his lot. Immediately after his election, not content to be surrounded by those who had been elected to support him, he gathered about him men of great mental calibre, the so-called "brain trust," men of special training in different fields, university professors, men well versed in economics and in all the theories of social government. He had to deal with the wealthiest country in the world and with one of the finest populations, industrious, thrifty and inventive.
I should like the house to study what happened in that country. It is not so easy for us to tell what has been done and what is being done in the totalitarian states, for the very good reason that in those countries the press has been practically suppressed,

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
and their peoples have no right to express their sentiments. No one at the present time knows what is happening in Russia. The same is true of Italy and Germany, although there are fine people in those states. But there has not been either a free press or a free electorate. The people have no right to self-expression, and therefore whatever may have been done with regard to the unemployment situation in that part of the world, we cannot form as clear an idea of the state of affairs there as we can of what has happened in the United States.
It is true the President of the United States was elected in 1933 by a large majority, but he has always "been surrounded by a free press and a free opposition; and when I hear some groups in this house declare that the present capitalist system is one that produces want and misery, I suggest that they have not studied the history of the United States prior to the last depression. Had they done so they would have realized that the leaders of finance and industry in that great republic desired to maintain a policy of plenty. That was their philosophy; they believed that poverty was unavoidable in any part of the civilized world, and they tried to put that conception into practice. Industries throughout the country were working full-time for a number of years, and the people were able to consume more and more of the goods produced. Skilled artists, the best writers and painter^, the best minds in the United States were enlisted in an endeavour to induce the American people to buy more and more of the manufactured goods of the country, thinking the public had unlimited power to consume and they could supply these requirements. Hon. members will recall the statement of Mr. Hoover that the objective should be two radios in every American home and two automobiles in every garage. In short, they believed in the policy of plenty. They not only believed that such a policy could be practised for a certain number of years, but had the idea it could go on indefinitely. Suddenly, however, they discovered that the buying power of the American people had dried up at its source, and that industry could not maintain the pace at which it had been going.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Because to some extent there was over-production, and because also great advances had been made in scientific improvements; technocracy and the displacement of man by machinery were highly accentuated. We should not call the present system the capitalist system; it is a scientific
system. We know what happens after the introduction of any invention. The inventor is outside the realm of politics. Every invention which is thrown into the social order, without previous preparation to take care of its disruptive effects, throws men out of work. We know what happened when steam power came into use, what happened with the advent of electricity and the automotive industry, and the internal combustion engine. In all these instances, added burdens were thrown upon civilization, and the machine, which was supposed to make the lot of the working man easier and to save him from the drudgery of manual labour for ten or fifteen hours a day, adversely affected him. It was supposed to lighten to a large extent the load of the worker, of the drudgery of long hours and arduous physical efforts.


Angus MacInnis: It has done that.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Only to a limited
extent.


Angus MacInnis: It has done it to the extent of 10,000,000 unemployed in the United States.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Even those workers who are using machinery are working to-day under conditions of greater drudgery than existed forty or sixty years ago. The machine has turned man into an automaton. He is no longer a craftsman; he has no right to be a craftsman; he is deprived of all initiative because the machine which was supposed to be the servant has become the master. Until every citizen of the world puts his mind to a solution of the unemployment situation, to the new problems that have to be faced from day to day, adaption to this new tyrant, the conditions that exist to-day will become more and more aggravated.
It is all right for some on the other side to murmur when I make that statement. What has machinery done? It has created a great army of unemployed. It certainly has displaced men; but I would be the last man in this house to say that we should stop invention and stop using machinery. But we must insist on finding a ratio, whatever it may be, so that those displaced may be reestablished in some way. Human labour displaced by the machine should be compensated in some way so that the people may be in a position to buy not only tbe necessities of life but all the things created by the inventiveness of the scientist and produced by the machine. It will be a slow process, no matter what form of government we may have, whether communism, fascism, nazism or democracy; it will probably take us a long time to adapt
2822	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
ourselves to the new conditions. Everyone here present, every citizen of this country, everyone throughout the world feels deeply in his heart and mind for the young who are suffering, the old people who are also suffering and for whom a full and fruitful life is almost impossible. Surely the human mind and human inventiveness which were capable of building the great mechanical civilization which we have will not be incapable of solving the problems that these new conditions have created.


John Charles Landeryou: Hon. members will
not use their brains.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Well, be patient. Surely you cannot claim a monopoly on that score.
Coming back to the situation in the United States, no one will deny that President Roosevelt was courageous. To work on he had the most advanced industrial country in the world, and industry on its own initiative has shown to everyone that it is possible to give to all not only the necessities of life and to help agricultural production, but also to provide comfort and even luxury for the masses of the people. Working under a democratic system against an alert public opinion and political opposition he tried to put some of his theories into practice. We all remember the National Recovery Act that was put on the statutes of the United States, which required the industrialists and financiers of that country to make certain sacrifices. It was said at that time that industrialists were making too great profits and too large a proportion of those profits was going into replacements and the building of new industries. They were asked to be satisfied with smaller profits, and by that means it was sought to increase the buying power of the people. Appeals were made to the patriotism of the people of the United States. But these theorists, these economists, even these industrialists soon realized that working with the human factor is entirely different from dealing with the mechanical side of industry. They were in the position of a little boy whose rubber ball has been punctured with a pin and the wind has gone out of it; while they were trying to smooth the surface on one side of the ball, the cavity appeared on the other side. Study what they tried to do in the United; States. They used up all the letters of the alphabet over and over again in new bureaux and institutions trying to solve the problem. They formed sixty-five new bureaux, many of which are familiar to us, like the NRA. the CCC, the CWA. the ABC, the XYZ and so on. But, after all that work

and expenditure of energy, has the unemployment situation been overcome in the United States? It has not. To some extent, of course, it has been alleviated-


John Charles Landeryou: They abolished poverty though, to a large extent.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Not any more than in this country, and our standard of living is at least as high as theirs. My hon. friend may be sure of that. With all their courage, energy and expenditure of brain power they arrived at this result, that the national debt has almost doubled since 1&30; in June, 1938, the total was $41,000,000,000 in round figures. Has unemployment entirely disappeared? No, not iby long odds. Yet we must realize and appreciate the courage that the Roosevelt administration has shown. It has been an incentive to other nations, not altogether to copy, but at least to forge forward as far as that big question is concerned. In 1933 there were 14,000,000 unemployed in the United States; in 1937, 8,000,000; in 1938, 11,500,000, and in 1939, 9,000,000. While I am quoting these figures, hon. members must remember that these policies I mentioned a few minutes ago have been put into operation. In 1935 there were 5,700,000 persons working on general work relief schemes; in 1937 the number was 7,650,000, and in January, 1938, 4,500,000 and in October last, 5,500,000. And the public debt which was $155 per capita in 1933 had risen to $305 in 1939.


John Charles Landeryou: What is it in Canada?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Will my friend hold his peace? I do not think I interrupted him when he was speaking at any time during the present session. I visited the United States last year, and it is true that under those schemes the natural resources of the United States have not decreased but have been increased. Nevertheless the fact remains and is glaring for any unbiased person to see that the unemployment situation there is far from being cured. At the present time they have a big armament program on which many thousands are employed; they are putting hundreds of thousands of young men into the. army and the navy, and still unemployment is the great plague in the national life of that nation. Surely if it had been possible to cure unemployment, that nation would have found the cure long ago. It was a cause of great astonishment to the people of the United States to find themselves in that situation, and no one will doubt for a moment that they have been trying earnestly to break those cables that were holding the nation and the individuals in bondage, because if there

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
is any nation that possesses the qualities and the courage that should enable it to solve that problem, it is that nation.
However, in the present evolution of things there are some hopeful features. I mentioned a few minutes ago that at the beginning of the present century it was still the firm belief that poverty was unavoidable. I would be one of the last to believe that we can have plenty for everyone unless we exert ourselves. We hear from time to time in this house of our unlimited natural resources. But there is no such thing as unlimited resources. I have just returned from my own section of the country where lumbering operations have been in progress for the last six months. This work necessitates people trudging through snow five or six feet deep, and no one would tell me that is an easy occupation; that would be an absolute fallacy. This applies to the development. However, I repeat that in this country, as in Great Britain and the United States, we have the finest asset any nation could desire, that is the quality of its population. Our people want to be active and enterprising; the great majority of them are willing and eager to play the game on all occasions and in all circumstances. But this country, like others, has been paralyzed to a large extent by the unemployment which is rampant throughout the world.
Coming down to our national politics, again I do not want to be a partisan; I have spoken on this important question both in opposition and on the government side. If we put all our energies together, we in this house and those in the senate, and find a solution of this problem, there will be enough glory and satisfaction for every hon. member of both houses to share.


John Charles Landeryou: Your party is in power, do you know any solution?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We all have some remedies for that problem, but are they all practical? It means more than being the government in power, my hon. friend. It was beyond the power of the government of the United States, with all the power it has at the present time. It needs more than an autocratic power, an oligarchy, such as they have in Russia at the present time; it needs more than a Hitler in Germany or a Mussolini in Italy to solve the unemployment situation. Even countries blessed with democratic governments and possessing almost unlimited natural resources and territory, such as England and France, experience at the moment the fears that unemployment has created in the hearts of all civilized people.
What I am about to say is not intended in a partisan way. In 1930 the Canadian people, of their own volition, chose a new government. At its head was one of the finest Canadians this country ever produced, a man who had been highly successful in his profession, and in finance, a man who, as far as his own records were concerned, was unequalled in his own section of the country and for that matter, I might say, in the whole of Canada; a man who showed his foresight, vision and ability and whose administrative ability had been felt on boards of directors of several great corporations. He believed in his heart that with these great qualities and the policies of his own party, properly applied, unemployment in this country could be cured. I do not need to remind this house of the statements he made during the campaign of 1930; they still resound in the minds of every Canadian who heard or read them. He thought at the time unemployment was only a passing mood as far as the national life of this country was concerned, and he was really convinced that it would be possible to clear it up in a very short time.
Parliament was called together in the fall of 1930, immediately after the election, and we passed a bill, with the principle of which I did not agree and in which I do not believe any parliamentarian had faith, under which we voted the sum of 820,000,000 to start direct relief so as to relieve or cure unemployment. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker-and I also address these remarks to the Minister of Labour

if it were possible for this parliament to do away with direct relief and substitute fruitful, healthy employment, I believe the people of Canada would be immensely better off. However, it was easier to implant that policy than it is to uproot it. I well remember when it was first applied in my own section of the country, and this refers equally to the rural and urban sections of my constituency. The people thought direct relief was mendicity; they thought they should not take it. They did not want to believe they had reached the point where they had to beg some government official to give them $15 or $20 or $40 a month. However, the idea sank deeper and deeper into the minds of the people, and I believe that to-day some are on relief who only a few years ago never dreamed that they would come to the point of asking for such assistance. It was a palliative; perhaps it- was the only policy the government could establish in the fall of that year.
At the same session-and again I am not being critical in making this statement-the then Prime Minister and his government increased the tariff, with implicit faith that in

2824	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
so doing they would enrich the national life of the country. At the moment I am not discussing whether or not the results were beneficial, but I want to give credit where credit is due. The then Prime Minister worked almost day and night for five successive years. There was not a man in this whole country who worked as earnestly and as hard as he did. However, with all his sincerity of purpose; with all the administrative qualities that he put forward while in power; with all his industry and energy, he was crushed finally by the unemployment situation. With all his ability; with the majority he had in the House of Commons, and with the aid of the policies he implemented to the fullest extent, he was not able to cure unemployment.
That is why I can readily understand the difference between the speeches of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey). I must say the hon. member for Greenwood showed wonderful talent in his speech on this subject. I had the pleasure of hearing the first part of that address and carefully read the second part. The hon. member stated that he was not going to go over ancient history, that he was not going to mention anything that occurred from 1930 to 1935. I believe he might derive some benefit from studying the struggle of his own party, when it was in power, to solve the unemployment situation.
The story of unemployment goes back much further than 1930. If we read history as far back as the dawn of civilization in this world we find that even thousands of years ago, under the tribal system, they had to face unemployment. Ever since life appeared on this planet, there has been a keen struggle for life. When one reads ancient history one is astonished, if not ashamed, to realize that unemployment or inactivity has been responsible for at least two-thirds of the wars that have occurred between nations. The present situation is but a repetition of what has occurred many times in the past. A country found its youth unoccupied; the people were able and willing to work but were handicapped by the lack of tools. The only way whereby the power and energy of those people could be used was by throwing them against their neighbours in war. We have that situation again to-day, perhaps intensified more than it ever has been. I do not know whether it was done to appease England or France, but the present leader in Spain, General Franco, made the statement that he had to retain his troops on a war footing; that it was impossible for him immediately to release hundreds of thousands of his young men; that

if he did so, these young men would find themselves suddenly without occupation and might become a cause of disorder. So it does us some good to study this question from all angles and to envisage the future not with absolute pessimism but nevertheless with the complete realization that no one party or no particular section of the people is entirely responsible for the situation in which we find ourselves.
It may be that at times when I was in opposition I sinned by being too much of a partisan, but when we were dealing with the great question of unemployment I always made it a point to praise the government as highly as I could. I praised the then Minister of Labour when he started the back-to-the-land movement, because I believe that if to-morrow we could solve the problems of agriculture we would solve at least fifty per cent of the problem of unemployment in this country. But I warned the government at that time that I thought they were not going far enough in that direction, that the scheme had not been sufficiently studied. I was not surprised, although I was a little astonished, to see that in speaking the other day the hon. member for Greenwood made the statement that the boys left the farms for better days. I do not believe that. That statement might be acceptable in one way, but I maintain that if it were possible to keep fifty per cent of our young people on the land we would solve in large measure the unemployment problem of this country, and in many instances it is still more fruitful for our farmers' sons to stay on the land.
Perhaps I may divulge a family secret. I have a brother who is a good dairy farmer three miles north of the town of Cochrane. He has been there for thirty-two years. He has five healthy, strapping young sons but, Mr. Speaker, I think he will be very lucky indeed if he manages to keep one of them on the farm. He is able to give each boy a good farm, absolutely free of debt, fully equipped with machinery and so on. More than that, I offered one of the eldest boys of that family one of my own farms, 140 acres under cultivation, with a good home, a good barn, a good span of horses and equipment worth at least 83,000; but he said, "No, uncle; I am going to work in the mines." There is something wrong in our present social and educational system when we find that attitude being taken. We must endeavour to maintain the greatest possible percentage of our native rural population on the land; otherwise we shall have a repetition of what happened in old Rome. It will be remembered

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
that practically all the victorious Roman soldiers, who covered almost the whole of the then civilized world, came from farms. Instead of going into productive occupations they remained in Rome, and that was one of the greatest causes of the destruction of the Roman empire.


Mr. BAKER:: They should have stayed on the farm.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: To some extent at least in this country we should maintain our industrialization. But surely it should be possible to some extent also to make it attractive enough for the average young farmer, at least fifty per cent of them, to remain on the farm. I presented a resolution a few years ago asking the government to help them directly on that score. Perhaps we shall have another session before an election, and I may have another opportunity to speak and elaborate my ideas on that problem.
In this house we have other sections of the opposition, but they are not in the same position as the Conservative party has been. They never have had the responsibility of government. And there is nothing that has a more sobering effect on any party than when it happens to be in office for a few years. I highly respect some of the ideology and ideals of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Personally I am not speaking with any spirit of trying to dictate to them, but I believe they would be fairer to themselves if they called themselves the socialist party. I say that because to the average Canadian the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation does not mean anything, and they are not known under their proper qualification. Here time and again they have mentioned the fact that they are socialists. This afternoon, and I believe with all sincerity, their house leader made a statement respecting the deplorable situation in the country, but I would even go so far as to accuse them of having capitalized on the depression since it started. They have been destructive in their criticism. I still have to find any resolution or any legislation brought in by any party since I have been in the house with which they seemed to be in agreement. Is that a fair way to deal with national problems? Is that the way to help in relieving national suffering and malaise? Certainly it is not.
Generally they build up their philosophy on an individual case. I, too, could do that.
I could tell about the fine type of men we have in this country. During the last provincial election campaign in Ontario we had a (big rally in the rural town of New Liskeard.
7M92-1781
There was a big public meeting at which two or three thousand people attended. After the meeting a fine old English speaking Ontarian came to me. I knew he was very old. I shook his hand, and after a few words I said, " I presume you are drawing old age pension?" He said " No, Mr. Bradette, my country does not owe me a living. It is I who owe my country and am under obligation to her; I must work for it. As long as I work, no, as long as I live, I will not collect an old age pension."


An hon. MEMBER:: Was he a Liberal?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I believe he was a good: Conservative. I did not make special inquiry,, but he might be a Conservative because he came from New Liskeard. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Little) will know more about him than I do.
I thought that was not the kind of thing the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party has preached here. It is all right to bring in an individual case, but we should not try to build a whole philosophy round it. Our hon. friends seem to think we should destroy the present order of things. They are in favour of that. In fact the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) mentioned in the debate on the trade agreement that they must do away with the present economic system. They do not call it the capitalist system any more. "We must do away with the present system, and immediately we will have prosperity."
What does the word " socialism" mean? It means the abolition of private property by the substitution of public ownership. Socialism is the first step towards communism, as I read in the Clarion only two days ago. I would ask my hon. friend this question: Has Russia solved unemployment? With all the liquidation of the agrarians and the intelligentzia in the Russian revolution, have they solved the unemployment problem? Surely not.
Speaking again of socialism, let us consider the Nazis. They maintain that they are national socialists. Have they solved unemployment in Germany?


Major James William Coldwell: Tell us what has been
done in New Zealand and Sweden.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: They have troubles of their own, too. Those countries are certainly not out-and-out socialist ones. They have their labour governments. They are just trying to put into practice some of their theories but I am afraid, when they try to implement them fully, they will have troubles in New Zealand. The individual has no right of self-expression in socialistic states. Can we visualize the Canadian people having a
2826	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
socialist party at the head of the country, where we would have to have bread tickets, meal tickets, meat tickets, clothes tickets? That would never be acceptable to the Canadian people.


Major James William Coldwell: What have we under Liberalism tout meal tickets, bread tickets and relief tickets?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Surely my hon. friend will not say that is what all the people get. Will he say that all our people are in that position? He and his party propound theories of socialism, and those theories mean only one thing to the Canadian people. They mean that there would be regimentation-that is the only expression which would describe it. But the Canadian people will not consent to the worst kind of autocratic bureaucracy.
In Italy where there is national socialism they also have trouble with their unemployed youth, although there are at present millions of them under arms.


Major James William Coldwell: What have they in
Spain?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Surely, after what I
have said with respect to what happened in the United States, my hon. friend will not say that we should have no unemployment in Canada under present conditions? Does he *say that if he and his party were in power there would be no unemployment? Certainly lie cannot back up such a statement. They often propound theories, but they have never given a solution to them.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, we have.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The only solution
they have offered has been to make greater the fester on the national life of Canada. In my own constituency the hon. member's party in the past worked on the passions of the people, capitalized on the depression situation, and tried to stultify the efforts of other people to solve it. They have been trying absolutely to make worse the situation we have to face in the country. Their energies could be much better spent in other directions than trying to capitalize, for instance, on the feelings of the two hundred young men who waited on the government this afternoon. Those young men knew the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) had their misfortunes just as much at heart as has the party of which I am speaking. They pose as the friends of labour. All members of parliament may pose as friends of labour. Every member in this parliament represents labour; we represent farmers, professional men and all other kinds of men. We do not want

class legislation; we believe in legislation for every citizen in Canada we represent; we try and want to be fair to all our constituents.
I repeat that the operations of the group to which I refer are destructive, and they are not trying as they should, to improve the national life of Canada. My statement at the present time is that they would be more fair to themselves if they came out openly as a socialist party, and if they were to follow the example of the communists in Canada, who are coming out as communists, and members of the communist party. I make that statement without personal animosity, but just to record conditions as I see them.
There is another group in the house, namely the Social Credit group, for the individual members of which-and this applies also to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation- I have the greatest personal respect. Anything I may say is no reflection on any individual of that group. I am merely trying to solve the problems before us at the present time. The member of the Social Credit party who preceded me mentioned the fact that it was a bad thing to try to put people to work. Well, I suppose it is even bad for that party to allow people to think. During the last election campaign in Alberta they told the people who did not understand social credit not to worry about it, that they would have experts after the election to explain it to them.


John Charles Landeryou: No, no. I object
to that. This has nothing to do with Alberta at all.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


John Charles Landeryou: But, Mr. Speaker,
what has Alberta to do with this question of unemployment?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Its federal members
certainly have some obligations in regard to that problem. The Social Credit party brings the monetary question to the front. No doubt they speak sincerely and honestly. I have no doubt they are honest in their belief and are sincere when they say that by the issuing of social credit scrip or social credit dividends we shall have no more unemployment in Canada. Surely the Minister of Finance-


John Charles Landeryou: On a question of
privilege, we never made the statement that social dividends would do away with unemployment.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The previous speaker said exactly what I am saying now.


John Charles Landeryou: He never said it would do away with unemployment.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: He certainly meant that all the way through.


John Charles Landeryou: We never maintained that. Stick to the facts.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is a new confession that I am hearing now; it is quite a revelation. I am talking about unemployment. I am not criticizing the Social Credit party for bringing the monetary question into the national forum. I will state here to-night that the monetary system can be reformed. It could be humanized to some extent, and I am convinced that the present Minister of Finance is progressive in regard to monetary reforms.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member has spoken forty minutes.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have only a few more words to say.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member can continue only with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I thank hon. members for their courtesy. I shall take only two minutes more. I believe that with all the intelligence we have in this country, with all the energy and all the cooperation of all groups and parties, and if it were possible for us to have a parliamentary committee consisting of the whole house where the people of this country could present their views-and we are getting briefs from them by the dozen week after week-we should be able to solve our unemployment problem at least to a large extent.
Before taking my seat, I just wish to say that I intended no personal reflections in anything I said during this debate, and that if through our concerted efforts we could alleviate to a large extent the present serious unemployment situation, not only would there be enough glory and merit for everyone, but we should also have the satisfaction of having fulfilled a great duty and obligation towards our country and our constituents.


David Spence: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the house that I shall take only a very few minutes. I had not intended to speak at all, but so many things have been said with which I do not agree that probably it is up to me to make a few observations.
I wish to thank the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) for the nice and fair speech that he has just made and for the kind things that he has said about my former leader, the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett. The hon.
member said that in 1930 Mr. Bennett made certain promises which he was not able to carry out. Nobody denies that. But nobody knew in 1930 that we were going to run into five terrible depression years. Mr. Bennett, however, brought the country through the worst five years of depression this country has ever seen; there is no doubt about that. The party opposite took over the government of this country in 1935 when Canada was convalescing, and immediately they got into power they started to tinker and monkey, making treaties with this country and that, so that they have got the country into such a state that it is back practically to where it was in 1930, and we shall 'have to take over the government again and bring the country back on its feet.
I have no particularly bad feelings for anybody on the other side of the house. In fact I rather like most of the faces over there. They seem to be always decent with me, and I speak of them as I find them.
I do not share the views of some hon. members who have told us how to cure unemployment. Some of the suggestions made were radical, while others were fine. It is a difficult thing to bring this country back to normal, I admit, but' I feel that the present government have not done all they could have done. They have been lacking in their duty; I do not think they deserve the approval of the people at another election, and I am satisfied they will not get it. We have given them every opportunity in the last few years to try to cure unemployment, but they have tinkered with tariffs and interfered with business so much that the people of Canada have lost all confidence, and this interference with business and industry has resulted in greater unemployment.
May I say to my hon. friends opposite that there are millions of dollars in this country ready for investment in business and industry if people could only feel that their investment was safe and there would be some stability. But most of the Canadian people have lost confidence and there is a lack of stability everywhere. My opinion is that if this government could restore the confidence of the people, then even at this late hour this would do more to eliminate unemployment than spending millions of dollars on anything they can think of, and the cost would be nothing. Just do the right thing. Get the people behind you. Let them understand that you are going to give them fair treatment and that they have a chance of investing their money with a prospect of getting a fair return. Then you will bring back confidence and improve conditions generally. I have said that
2828	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
to my own party in the past, and I am of the same opinion still. All that is wrong is that the people have lost confidence-and you cannot get them to invest money when they lack confidence. All they will invest in now is government bonds paying about two per cent interest. Nobody but a coward will do that. No one with any back-bone will put his money in government bonds at two per cent when he should be taking a risk in business and making from five to ten per cent.


Richard Langton Baker: And employing people.


David Spence: And employing people is right. A program of public buildings which some members advocate is not, in my opinion, the proper thing. It is purely a temporary expedient. If you get into a policy of building buildings you will be building buildings where they are not needed. Both parties have done that in the past ever since I have been in this house. So I say that a policy of public buildings is no good. It must be something permanent.
The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol) made some really good suggestions this afternoon. I am familiar with some of the work that he suggested: for example, the building of national highways. I think we all realize that is a good investment. We in Ontario have good national highways, good provincial highways, and good county highways, and we get many tourists and a good deal of their money. Nothing will bring more money into the country than good national highways, and money spent in that way will meet with criticism from nobody.
National airways have also been spoken of. I am not fond of travelling by air, but certainly people are becoming air-minded to-day and I would not object to money being spent to develop air travel, although personally I do not like it. But we must recognize chat the days of the narrow-gauge railways and the old canals with the boats drawn by a horse on the bank, have gone and we can never go back to them, so I suppose we shall all be riding in aeroplanes after a while.
Flood relief has also been suggested by my hon. friend. That is another good way of spending money. A great part of Ontario from London to Paris and around Brantford is flooded every year or two years, hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage being done by the water overflowing the banks, flooding the surrounding country and endangering people's lives. Money could well be spent there. We have also floods between here and Toronto, at Port Hope, for instance, and Peterborough. I remember going down on the train to Toronto from Ottawa on one occasion;
I Mr. Spence.]
when we got within twenty miles of Toronto
a train was standing there which had left that city the night before at eleven o'clock; the bridge behind her had gone and the bridge was down in front of her. We had to stay there for a while, and then we backed up through Lindsay. We could not get into Toronto at all. The Canadian Pacific offered to take us in by bus, but water had flooded the Kingston road four feet deep, and so we could not take the bus. Therefore I think money might well be spent on flood control, and I know many places where one could spend it as I am familiar with highways, particularly in Ontario.
Then there is the conservation of water. That would be another useful project.
But one project which I would particularly draw to the attention of the Minister of Labour is reforestation. In the county of York, where I happen to be on the good roads commission, there is a place called Mount Albert, thirty or forty miles out of Toronto, and there they have been reforesting for the last ten years hundreds of acres of land. It is really not land at all; it is simply blow sand. It is wonderful to what a height these trees have grown in the last ten years. It seems to me that the government should adopt a policy of reforestation on practically all the vacant and waste land in this country, because some kind of tree will grow there. Of course all sorts of trees will not grow on the same land, but the forestry branch can supply a man who will give advice as to what species should be planted in certain kinds of soil. If that were done, I believe in fifty years' time it would pay off the national debt, because trees will grow to a great size in half a century. I planted two maples on my own lot, and after twenty-five years they are a wonderful size. Trees are growing in this blow sand around Mount Albert, on the east side of Toronto, and they are growing rapidly. At one time the blow sand would be piled up on the roadway as high as a big stack of hay, and we had to use scrapers and other machines to clear the road and let people get by. But with reforestation we have grown good trees and have kept the sand from drifting. Some people say that fifty years is a long time to wait. Practically everyone in this house will be gone by that time. But we must look to the future and do something for the people who are coming after us.
As regards the flood conditions mentioned by the hon. member for Davenport, I am familiar with them because I happened to be in the Pittsburgh area in 1887, when one of the worst floods occurred. I went there in 1886, and the next year there was the worst

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
flood I ever saw. The Allegheny, the Monon-gahela and the Ohio meet at a place they call the Point, on the south side of Pittsburgh, and I never saw the like of that flood. The rivers were up to the second storey of some buildings close to the water side. I did at that time what I should not like to do to-day; I helped the engineer and a couple of other fellows build a pontoon bridge on that water, and I assisted in moving people from the second stories of their houses and shifting pianos from the ground floor to the second storey. Certainly floods are disastrous things.
I know all about the Johnstown flood because I happened to be there a few days after it happened. It is the part of the country where I lived first after I came from the old country. I am also familiar with the Miami river of which the hon. member for Davenport spoke. At the present time in the United States they are spending millions of dollars on flood prevention work, and probably in the near future there will be no danger from this source. Not long ago I was down at Cincinnati inspecting a sewage disposal plant. The river had been very low, and the banks were as high as the ceiling of this chamber, but when the flood came it rose to the top of the banks. No one ever saw worse scenes of havoc and ruin; millions of dollars were lost. Those three rivers are just as bad as the Mississippi.
Our duty in this country is to restore business to normalcy and get the people working. I shall be glad to do anything I can in a quiet way. I would suggest that we get together with our feet on the table and eliminate the press and the Hansard reporters. Most hon. members talk to get their names in Hansard. I shall be glad to sit in with the gang and take part in a really confidential talk, where we could consider suggestions which would be of benefit to the country. But people will rise in this house and make long speeches. I am not hinting at anybody, because the hon. member who made the last long speech in this chamber is quite competent to make a speech at any time; it was one of the best speeches that have been made in this house, and I do not think anyone could controvert what he said, because his speech was sincere and honest. However, I do say that there is too much talking by hon. members in order to get their names in Hansard. So far as I am concerned I do not care whether my name or my remarks ever appear in Hansard. I would rather sit with others quietly round a table getting the views of those who are talking common sense in an effort to eliminate the difficulties we are under to-day. That is the way in which our
problems will be solved, not by talking nonsense, playing to the gallery and taking up the time of the house.
There is a little more than a month to go before their majesties arrive, and I hope we shall all pay some attention to business and try to get the work of the house done by that time. Possibly I should not be saying that, because some of my colleagues on this side may not agree with me, but that is my view. At the same time I appeal to the government to use every bit of influence they have in order to find employment for the people who are unfortunately out of work. Many suggestions have been made to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). I hope he will benefit by what he has heard, and no doubt he will, because I am satisfied that he is sympathetic. Although so far he has not done very much, I believe he is willing to try to do something.


Mr. E. J. POOLE (Red Deer):: 
John Charles Landeryou: And without shoes to wear.


Eric Joseph Poole: Those are the facts. I am a social crediter so-called. I believe that before this parliament can act democratically-by that I mean that democracy is given an opportunity really to function, by making available to the people the wealth we have-we must have a measure of monetary reform. It is gratifying to me to stand here to-night and



Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
know that the plan which we have put forward in this house in the last three years has never been successfully challenged. We have the goods, we have the consumers, we have the machines to produce more, we have the natural resources and the mental and physical energy of a million people who to-day are unemployed; every ingredient for a happy Canada is there. But when it comes to the question of money that is a subject which is vetoed in this house. Does any lion, member think I believe for one moment that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) is not doing his best? I do believe that he is doing his best. But I know that the Minister of Labour, like every other minister, cannot do the things he would like to do, because they are in a monetary strait-jacket. The activities of the various departments are dependent upon the amount of money available through orthodox channels.
This afternoon the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) suggested as a measure to relieve unemployment in this country the building of dams for flood control. I believe those dams should be built; we have the concrete, we have the labour, we have the machinery. But we have not the money. Those who hold the money-bag of the nation control the nation. The people of this nation and of every other nation in the world are going to have to make the choice very shortly whether they will have real democracy, in which people can not only vote but get what they vote for, or chaos. It is one or the other. The monetary system is the keystone; without that keystone the arch of the economic system cannot bear any further weight. All across this country to-day in all sorts of organizations such as service clubs, the question of unemployment is being aired. In many churches across this country unemployment is being discussed. I tried an experiment in the last few days; I asked twelve men, at different times and in various walks of life, hat would you do with regard to unemployment if you were charged with the responsibility of dealing with it?" There was not one but said, "Put them to work." But when I asked them the same question that we asked of the hon. member for Davenport or the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) who spoke yesterday for three and a half hours, and that we ask of the government, "How are you going to finance it?" they are stumped right there.
I know that on every question which comes up in this house this group has a tendency to discuss the question of money. Why should we not? Money is the problem. It is the mechanism that passes goods from the pro-

ducer to the consumer; and if industry is producing more goods with less labour, then there is less wages and therefore less purchasing power, while there are higher costs of production in terms of machinery.
We must make the choice, Mr. Speaker, whether we enter an age in which for the first time in the history of man the people will enjoy the fruits of 2.000 years of science, or whether this industrial machine will destroy us, because of this incomplete and inadequate mechanism of money. This parliament must choose. In 1935 the people of this country had some hope that unemployment would be solved, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) told us he would issue credit in terms of public need. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) told us he would issue 8500.000,000 in new currency. He has sat in his place in this house for the last three years, but not one further word has been said on the subject. I know many Liberals feel as we do in this corner of the house.
If at any time, Mr. Speaker, in speaking in this house I left the impression that I had no respect for parliament I want to correct it. I have; but as one of the youngest members of this house I am determined to make parliament what it should be; to see, so far as I am able, that it turns out the kind of legislation that will bring happiness to my people. Parliament is a useless instrument unless it controls the money-bag of the nation, unless it has the right to issue credit, unless it has the right to control the instrument that makes things go. I have before me a pastoral letter from the archibishop of Toronto, who said that poverty in the midst of Canada's plenty must be attacked. His excellency charged as follows:
The Catholic conscience must arise to attack the problem of the world's distress and its poverty in the midst of plenty.
He goes on to say that unemployment is fertile soil for all the evils and insidious organizations that might destroy a nation. The archbishop further stated:
In conformity with the wishes of our holy rather, the pope, and keeping before us his lcIe soc^ justice and charity for the masses oi the people, with all the authority at my C?mi?an<^ an(^ w*th all the conviction of the shepherd s heart I ask the clergy, religious communities and faithful of all classes in this archdiocese to join in a holy crusade of prayer tor the development of christianism in the social life of all communities.
During the last election campaign the Prime Minister said that in the next parliament the greatest battle ever to be waged in any parliament would be carried on between the people

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
on. the one hand and finance on the other. It must be tiring to hon. members opposite to listen to us here hammering away on this monetary question, but we will continue to do so; we will continue that fight, because we have the sure conviction that this is where the evil lies.
The direction of the Bank of Canada has not been satisfactory, as far as I can find out. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) persistently tells us that the issuance of more money would mean inflation. The other day he went back to 1935 and said that we are now inflating, that we have a measure of controlled inflation. Why did he not go back to 1929, the year of the high price level in this country? Here we talk of relief for the distressed farmers who are facing an impossible situation. They cannot meet their obligations. According to every present indication the world price of wheat will be lowered, so the income from agriculture will be less, while debts and interest will compound and compound. And year after year those men who are not unemployed, the farmers, have been going behind. People come to me every year when I go home and say, "What would you do with this?" They want to place their case under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, or desire to get some relief through the debt adjustment board. But when I study their individual cases I can see how hopeless it really is. Even if they had crops for the next five years at a guaranteed price of ninety cents a bushel they could not possibly meet their obligations. Some suggest that others should go on the land. Why, to-day people on farms are suffering from malnutrition. They may have the things they can produce on the farms, but they cannot get the other things that are not common to farm production. So the problem of unemployment is identical with the problem of agriculture. There is no solution for it outside monetary reform, the issuance of credit in terms of public need.
Hon. members speak about Alberta breaking its promises; hon. members tell us we made promises that we had no intention of keeping; hon. members say that our record is worse than that of any other province. Let me say this: In terms of health legislation, in terms of debt, in terms of unemployment relief. I think we lead the field of the nine provinces. If this parliament is not prepared to bring about the necessary monetary reform then give that one province an opportunity to do so. We will go ahead and do it. If you do not want to do it. at least give us the opportunity; that is all we ask We are 71492-179J
facing the facts squarely. This year a relief committee operated in Alberta, and the recommendations of that committee were brought into the legislature. Just to show how we are facing these facts I want to quote one passage from a speech made by Doctor Cross, minister of health of Alberta:
As a result of their investigation, they came to this'conclusion: that the only hope for the people on relief as far as the powers of this province go, and under the present economic system, is rehabilitation-rehabilitate them in the industries or on farms; and, in order to do this successfully, the government must be prepared to subsidize them for an indefinite period of time with the hope that they may eventually become partially self-supporting. They suggest that this government go on fighting for monetary reform. It's the only real hope they can see for these people.
This year I was in Nordegg, a town built up on the one industry, the production of coal. There we find men working one day a week, as they have been doing for some years. If they happen to work a full week they do not benefit because the mine operators own the property, and everything the men make beyond the one day a week goes to pay the rent of the houses in which they live. What a hopeless future! What a mad system! And we have been sitting here for three years, or rather for eight years, because I do not differentiate between one party and the other. I am not blaming the parties. What I do want to do is to impress upon the government that when you analyse the problem you find the solution lies in money. That is what we are short of in this country. You can bring about monetary reform without inflation. The Minister of Finance has never yet successfully contradicted that statement.
The other day he spoke about velocity. He said that we do not take that into consideration, and that the danger was that with the velocity speeded up after the issuing of more money we would have chaos, and inferred that if velocity were not speeded up we might have prosperity. I do not know how you speed up the velocity of money. If you can tell me how those thousands of people in Canada who are existing on $6.42 per month can increase their prosperity by increasing the velocity of their money, then you have a convert.
Let me appeal to the government along these lines. Let me say this: We have the desire, as you have, to solve the problems of Canada. So much depends upon it-possibly the whole of civilization. I know how the generation to which I belong feel about it, and I want to give them an opportunity to restore to themselves some vestige of manhood. Once again there must be not only
Privy Council Appeals

the desire to live, but that bubbling health which impels the youth of a nation into a glorious future.
Let us combine our forces in the house. Let us find out if we are right or wrong. We can cut across all party lines, and submerge politics. If we can unite by finding that one common denominator, if we can think in terms of Canada first, then this problem is already solved and happiness is here.
On motion of Mr. Pelletier the debate was adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the house.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, before the house adjourns, there is a matter I should like to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister. I notice the Minister of Justice is not in his seat, but an incident occurred this, evening which rather disturbed me. The Minister of Justice announced that Bill No. 9, would be referred to the supreme court. Some of us desired to speak on the bill, but the Minister of Justice having moved the adjournment of the debate, it was impossible for us to express any views thereon. What I suggest to the Prime Minister is that it should not be allowed to go out to the public, at this stage of the disturbed conditions of the world, that Canada was definitely at this time contemplating repudiating or doing away with appeals to the privy council. Some of us hold strong views on the matter, contrary to those contained in the bill. We feel that this is not a time when it should go out to the world that definite steps were being taken. It might appear, in the absence of some protest such as I am making now, or such as we would have made had we had an opportunity to speak, that there was unanimity of opinion in the house that this bill should pass, and that the reference to the supreme court is based upon that assumption.
I should like to suggest to the Prime Minister, if he would give it thought^and I repeat I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here -that it might be considered over the weekend, and perhaps a statement could be made on Monday. I am making this request on behalf of myself and a number who have spoken to me and who hold similar views.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot speak positively as to what the Minister of Justice has in his mind in the matter, but I would assume it would be that, among other things, [Mr. Poole.)
the reference to the supreme court would be for the purpose of avoiding the very impression my hon. friend has suggested might be created. If that step were not taken the government would wish to have the opinion of the supreme court on the measure, before - the next step would be taken.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The point I am emphasizing is that it should not go out to the world that the house is in any sense unanimous in either the reference to the supreme court or the abandonment of the system of appeals to the privy council. I really feel that it would perhaps be interpreted abroad as an indication of Canada's lukewarmness. I think we would all desire to avoid any such impression-a false one, perhaps; but nevertheless there would be the very great danger that that would be the interpretation placed upon such action.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no
doubt the Minister of Justice will have a word to say about the matter on Monday. But I think I can assure my hon. friend the last impression the government would wish to have created at this or any other time would be any step we were taking was with a view to doing anything other than strengthening, rather than weakening, the ties between the different parts of the British commonwealth.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad to hear the
Prime Minister say that.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.56 p.m.
Monday, April 17, 1939