[Stage Direction]
Second report of the special committee on electoral matters.-Mr. Bothwell.


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Mr. J. S WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask leave to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the serious situation existing in Vancouver as a result of the eviction of single unemployed men from the post office, and in order at once to stop disturbances.
And leave having been granted:


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Vancouver is so serious that we have no other course than to bring it to the attention of the house and of the government. On various occasions a number on this side of the house have endeavoured to call attention to the situation which was gradually becoming more dangerous in Vancouver owing to the occupancy of the art gallery and the post office by single unemployed men. I bring forward this resolution not to advocate greater police action, but on the other hand once more to attempt to get the government to take action in a critical situation- constructive action, not the action that has recently been taken by the police.
It is not necessary for me to spend any length of time in bringing to the attention of the house the causes of the trouble of yesterday. A number of these men had been in the camps. They came back to Vancouver and could find no work. In desperation they took possession of the lower floor of the art gallery and of the post office, and there for a month have been bivouacked. Strangely enough, it would seem- that they have received on the whole the support of the citizens of Vancouver.
Action has been urged by us along the line of providing work. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) took occasion to urge that the post office should be vacated. But the government offered no alternative place to which the men could go. As I see the matter, the men took the only means available
tMr. Crerar.J
to them of calling attention to their plight. They did not resort to arms; they did not resort to force. They simply attempted to bring their condition to the attention of the provincial and the federal governments. This government offered them one alternative and one only, namely, that they should be returned to their places of origin. As we have pointed out again and again, the majority of these men cannot very well establish residence anywhere. They belong to the great army of unemployed transients. They may be employed one year or one month in Winnipeg, the next in northern Ontario, the next in Vancouver. They are men of a class which has been called upon to do rough pioneer work all over this country. And they are not fools by any means. They know perfectly well that they cannot establish residence, and if they are returned from Vancouver to Winnipeg or Toronto or Montreal they will not be in one whit better position than they are in Vancouver to-day. So the only alternative so far as we can gather which the government offered them was of no value.
We have pointed out here again and again that if this kind of thing were allowed to go on, there would be some occasion when some incident would force trouble. In this particular case it seems that the authorities did not wait for the men to riot, but themselves took forcible action and used tear gas bombs and clubs for the purpose of evicting them from the post office. According to the press, the orders came from Ottawa; apparently there was some request from the premier of British Columbia.
I should like to ask the government very frankly, what choice had these men? They could not be sent to their places of origin. They could only go out in the streets. They did not resort to force of arms. They simply took a rather spectacular way of bringing their plight to the attention of the public. It is unfortunate, of course, that in their flight, after having been evicted, they smashed windows in a number of stores and caused, according to the press, thousands of dollars' worth of damage. The report which I had stated that these men were gas-crazed as a result of the gas attack. I do not know whether the gas used brings on craziness of that kind, but I can well imagine that if most of us were treated in that fashion we would be willing blindly to hit at almost anything that showed itself; I think that would be the natural reaction. After all, these men are not criminals-the house should be reminded of that-but poor fellows out of work, deprived of the opportunity of making a living. I am sorry, as we all are, that

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
windows were broken. I am glad to know that when, in the afternoon, they congregated before the police cells, wiser counsels prevailed. One of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members of the legislature there urged that they should disperse, and I believe that was done. But no one will be able to control the feelings of resentment which have been stirred up by such an unwarranted act on the part of the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: On a Sunday.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not care
whether it was on Sunday or any other day; it was an unwarranted act whenever it was done.
It may be said that these men are led by agitators. I have not been, and other hon. members have not been,, at the coast in recent weeks. I cannot speak as to the particular men who are heading them, but I would say this, that if there had been no leaders I could well wish that there had been, and I give all honour to the men among them who took positions of leadership in an extremely difficult situation of that kind. I suppose we sha'.! have the old bogey raised that these men were communists or something of that kind. This situation has nothing to do with communism. It is the result of unemployment. And if there is nobody else to take the lead I hope that men will be raised up who will do so.
The irony of the whole situation is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself was away over the week-end celebrating his grandfather's revolution. My grandfather was on the other side in that revolt, but I do not hold it against William Lyon Mackenzie that he agitated against the intolerable conditions which, as I think we all now believe, existed at that time. But I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether he thinks his grandfather was justified in resorting to arms.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: He did not sit in a post office.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No; sitting in a post office is a peaceable thing, and William Lyon Mackenzie resorted to arms. His grandson the Prime Minister spends the week-end in lauding the action which his grandfather took, and yet his government here is using violence against men who themselves have used no violence and are simply protesting against intolerable conditions. I could not but think that this very well illustrates the aptness of those words of James Russell Lowell in The Present Crisis:
'Tis as easy to be heroes as to sit the idle slaves
Of a legendary virtue carved upon our fathers' graves,
Worshippers of light ancestral make the present light a crime;-
The trouble is:
We see dimly in the present what is small and what is great,
Slow of faith, how weak an arm may turn the iron helm of fate.
I will not read all the poem, but I would
commend to every hon. member, if he does not know them, these verses, which are great in sentiment, whether or not they are regarded as the greatest among poems:
They have rights who dare maintain them;
we are traitors to our sires,
Smothering in their holy ashes freedom's new-lit altar-fires;
Shall vie make their creed our jailor? Shall we, in our haste to slay,
From the tombs of the old prophets steal the funeral lamps away To light up the martyr-fagots round the prophets of to-day?
New occasions teach new duties: time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of truth;
Lo, before us gleam her camp-fires! we ourselves must pilgrims be,
Launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate winter sea.
Nor attempt the future's portal with the past's blood-rusted key.
If there was anything in the career of William Lyon Mackenzie which deserves commendation to-day, much greater is the commendation which we should give to these unemployed men who have the courage to stand out and let the public know the plight of themselves and their fellows.
Somebody behind me suggested that this police action was taken on Sunday. I am afraid I am not a Sabbatarian. I do not care much whether it was done on Sunday or another day, but I am concerned in the question whether it is all in keeping with the real spirit of Christianity. I have been quoting Lowell. I could not but think of yet another of his poems, called A Parable, the words of which were instilled into me in my childhood:
Said Christ our Lord, "I will go and see How the men, my brethren, believe in me," He passed not again through the gate of birth,
But made himself known to the children of earth.
He wandered about and everywhere:
With carpets of gold the ground they spread Wherever the Son of Man should tread,
And in palace-chambers lofty and rare They lodged him, and served him with kingly fare.
4020	COMMONS
Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
And so on, and so on.
But still, wherever his steps they led,
The Lord in sorrow bent down his head,
And from under the heavy foundation-stones, The son of Mary heard bitter groans.
And in church, and palace, and judgment-hall,
He marked great fissures that rent the wall, And opened wider and yet more wide As the living foundation heaved and sighed.
I pass over the next stanzas:
Then Christ sought out an artisan,
A low-browed, stunted, haggard man,
And a motherless girl, whose fingers thin Pushed from her faintly want and sin.
These set he in the midst of them,
And as they drew back their garment-hem, For fear of defilement, "Lo, here," said he, "The images ye have made of me!"
We have had these thousands of poor unemployed men, not merely in Vancouver, but in eveiy one of our great industrial centres, and the policy of this government, acquiesced in by its supporters, is degrading them. Then when in desperation they take some overt action, in the name of justice we rise and say that some repressive measure must be taken.
The Prime Minister has the audacity to say that the government "has shown patience and forbearance." Patience and forbearance! The only patience and forbearance they have shown is to do the natural and easy thing- that is, to do nothing. What about the patience and forbearance of these men who for the last month have been lying on newspapers in a public building, sending out some of their number to beg as did the old time friars, from door to door. Begging for charity- do you think these men like to live on charity? Not a bit of it. They want work and wages, but under present conditions they cannot have work and wages.
The fact I wish to emphasize is that notwithstanding the action of yesterday the problem remains still the same. It is true that the men are out of the art gallery and the post office, but the problem remains still the same. I suppose the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice will tell us how bad these men are and offer some excuse for government policy. I remember very well a few years ago when the then Minister of Justice got up and told me that the penitentiaries were fine; he read reports from his officials that stated there was nothing much wrong. He made out a lot of our charges to be very foolish. And that was not very long ago. I do not refer to the present Minister of Justice but his predecessor. And now there comes a report which fully substantiates the serious reports of the prisoners and others whom we had quoted. I suppose that now, 
after these months and years have gone by, something will be done; but why should not something have been done then? Why should we be tied by a bureaucratic practice that tends always to give official reports priority over anything else?
The fact is that the present dominion government recognized responsibility towards the men, because some months ago they provided work projects that gave the men a few months' work. Then when spring came the men were turned off. I admit that under normal conditions it is probable that the men could have found work in the spring, because normally work opens in the spring. But notwithstanding the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), I submit that for the great majority of the workers in the country times are anything but prosperous, and though there may have been more work than a year ago there are still large numbers without work; and for those without work the situation is as serious as it ever was. It may be that the curve is rising and more profits are being made. On the other hand, for these unemployed men the position is stationary; they cannot sink much lower than they are to-day.
The government, I assert, recognized its responsibility and provided work for them and then suddenly turned them off, washed their hands of the responsibility and left the problem to be dealt with by the city of Vancouver. I suggest very seriously to the government that even at this stage the least they can do for these men is to provide them with shelter and food until such time as work can be found for them. That is the least that can be done for the men. A number of them found shelter in a public building and a number received food through the generosity of the citizens of Vancouver. Let me repeat that the least that this government can do is to provide for these men shelter and food until such time as work can be given them. Unless the government does that, I would feel like warning the government that we have not yet seen the most serious troubles that may occur on the west coast. I suppose the Minister of Justice, who is muttering something to himself, will presently get up and accuse me of inciting to trouble.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes; it
is an invitation to trouble.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All right; let the
minister talk. If that is the best reply he can give, he is free to make it. But let me point out that again and again, we in this corner have urged the government to take

Unemploymen t-Vancouver Situation
action, warning them, not threatening them, that the situation was such that unless they took action something of this kind was inevitable. They refused to do anything and I suppose that with one hundred of a majority they can continue to refuse to do anything. But I want to warn them again that the problem is precisely the same as it was yesterday morning; in fact it is worse, because the men are beginning to realize that the government cares precious little about them- which is the most serious thing that can take place.
Talk about developing anarchy! It is not a group of agitators that are bringing us to anarchy; it is the action, or rather the inaction of the government in not providing for the real needs of the people. I suppose the government can congratulate itself, in that high and lofty manner, upon the fact that the majesty of the law has been vindicated. Yes; let them have whatever consolation they can get out of that. Great is the law! But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we are beginning to understand in this country more and more that there is one law for the rich and another law for the poor; or, if you like to put it another way, that justice shows one face towards the rich and another face towards the poor.
It happened that over this week-end, in preparation for the budget debate, I was reading the evidence given before the royal commission on the textile industry. I want to say now, in all seriousness, that that discloses a shameful, sickening story of heartless exploitation, of wholesale robbery by men prominent in the public life of Canada. Inordinate greed, bare-faced lying, and criminal fraud characterize the careers of this gang of high-class crooks. I say that seriously. And yet this gang of high-class crooks shelter within the structure of our tariff arrangements.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We were told by
the Minister of Finance in his speech on Thursday that he does not propose to do anything about this situation this year, that tariff changes are to be put off. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that until there is penitentiary punishment for some of the men who. according to the evidence, have been defrauding the government-


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -there is not much use-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. member is getting away from the subject of the motion before the house, which has to do with the situation in Vancouver.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, Mr. Speaker,
I will conclude in a moment or so. I say that the action of the government with regard to this textile business has been very dilatory. This matter has been going on for years. The actual reports have been in the possession of the government for one year and no action has been taken.


Mr. DUNNING:: That is entirely wrong.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let the Minister of Finance say what action has been taken.


Charles Avery Dunning: They are in the courts now; that is the position.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They may be in the courts, but I should like to know what action has been taken.


Walter Edward Foster: I shall have to ask the hon. member to confine himself within the scope of his motion, which refers to the situation in Vancouver.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My point is that this precipitate action in connection with the Vancouver unemployed will make the people of Canada realize that justice is not being handed out these days with an even hand. Where there has been a much more serious infringement of justice, little or no action has been taken. These unfortunate unemployed are guilty only of the misdemeanour of trespass; they have been guilty only of the most petty crime. They were told to get out of these public buildings, and when they refused to do so, they were clubbed and gassed. All this has happened at a time when other people much more guilty are being treated with the greatest leniency.
If this kind of thing is to continue in Canada it will mean the undermining of what we have called free government. It will mean the undermining of real democracy. When I was a child I was instructed that justice was blindfolded in order that she might act with impartiality, but after some years in this house I have come to believe that justice is blindfolded in order that she may not recognize the realities of the situation.
I shall not go into any further details as to what took place in Vancouver. I feel justified in taking the action I have taken to-day. I wish I could have spoken more strongly a month ago. I have known something of the lives of men of this class over the last thirty years. There may be individual rascals among them, and we shall probably hear of them, but on the whole this group of men have made an enormous contribution to the welfare of this country. Most of these men are unemployed through no fault of their
4022	COMMONS
Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
own. Even the smashing of windows is not as serious as the official policy of smashing of the morale of these men. Unless the government now steps in to help them, the way will be left open for further disturbances and indeed, as I have said, for the undermining of democracy itself.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, as the minister
in control of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police I think it is my duty to give to the house an official report of the events of yesterday which have been the cause of the denunciation to-day by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). The hon. member says that the step taken by these unfortunate unemployed was spectacular. but that they could take no other. I believe they were ill advised in taking the action they did. My hon. friend, says that the government did not wait for the men to riot. I am amazed that he should think that occupation of the public property of Canada should be allowed to continue until riots occurred.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What about the
alternative I proposed?


Ernest Lapointe: I listened attentively to my hon. friend. I heard his strong and violent words, but he failed utterly to suggest any solution of this problem.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Work and wages.


Mr. MacINNIS:: What did you offer in
1935?


Ernest Lapointe: I expected that. If the government has been open to attack, it has been because of the leniency shown. It has been attacked for taking that attitude, not only in this house but elsewhere, and particularly in Vancouver. The post office at Vancouver has been occupied in this way by hundreds of men for the last four or five weeks. They were allowed to occupy this public building without interference on the part of the authorities. The government has been criticized for allowing that sort of thing to continue. I can remember such a kindly and estimable and moderate gentleman as the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) only the other day commencing his remarks with the question, "Is this Canada?" The government has been blamed for having allowed this state of affairs to continue, and causing the population of the city of Vancouver to suffer because of this invasion.
What possible solution of the difficulty could be hoped for by this invasion of the post office building? It was only because the government was warned that there was
fMr. Woods worth. 1
great danger of contagion in Vancouver that steps were taken. I ask any hon. member of this house if there was not a responsibility that had to be assumed by the government. This had to be done and it was done in the most careful way. I should like to read a telegram that was sent by the acting Postmaster General (Mr. Euler) to the municipal authorities of Vancouver on June 17. It reads:
In view of the protracted illegal occupation of the post office in Vancouver which is represented as an increasing nuisance to those who make proper use of this building and as a menace through possible contagion to the health of the occupants and to others I am authorized by the dominion government to ask the appropriate authorities of the city of Vancouver to take such steps as they deem necessary to have this federal building vacated by those who are occupying it as trespassers. The dominion government in common with provincial and civic authorities have shown patience and forbearance in dealing with this situation. We have been anxious by such an attitude to avoid the possibility of any untoward incident. We had hoped that the passage of a little time would make apparent to the persons involved the error of proceeding as they have. As such unfortunately lias not proved to be the case we feel that the existing situation should not be permitted longer to continue.
Instructions were sent and given that the men were to be very careful to select the best time possible in order to avoid trouble and to carry out their task in such a way as to avoid as much as possible destruction of property and injury to persons. The report I have received from the authorities, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as well as the civic authorities of Vancouver, is that it was impossible to do what was done in a more careful and at the same time equally effective manner. The other day the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Mac-Neil) said that Colonel Foster, chief of the Vancouver police, was a cool-headed man, a splendid officer, and that Vancouver was fortunate in having him at the head of the force. Colonel Foster was in charge of those operations, because what was done yesterday was in charge of the civic authorities; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police only gave such assistance as was necessary in order to bring about the evacuation of the post office. The mounted police are now in charge of the Vancouver post office and will see that the building is kept free for its public and official use.
The report I have from Major Hill, the officer commanding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at Vancouver, is that the operation was carried out with the least possible injury to persons and damage to property, and that there was the closest co-

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
operation between the two forces. My hon. friend may speak of the use of gas, but anyone who knows anything about a matter of this kind realizes that this is the most humane way to carry out an operation of this kind. Otherwise these men would have had to be evicted by means of force, and certainly there would have been more injuries than resulted through the use of gas to compel them to leave the building. It is unfortunate that some people were injured; my information is that two members of the city police and two of the unemployed had to receive hospital treatment. The others who were hurt suffered only slight injury which did not require hospital treatment. If an operation of this kind was necessary I do not think there was any possibility of its being carried out with less trouble and less injury to those who took part. Of course, I repeat, I am sorry, as all the members of the government and of the house generally are sorry, that injury should have been suffered by anybody as a result of what took place yesterday. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is wrong when he thinks he has a monopoly on humanitarianism.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not suggest that at all in any way. I would suggest, though, that the government has the facilities for doing things, and we have not


Ernest Lapointe: Well, my hon. friend always springs up when somebody talks about him, but for a man who is so strong for the freedom of speech he seems little inclined to let those who differ with him express their views unmolested. However, I say the members on this and all sides of the house are quite as sympathetic to human troubles and miseries as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, though they may not be as violent and bitter in their denunciations and may not think that others are callous and forgetful of what is due their fellow men. In this instance the police have done their duty, as they had to do it, in the most humane way, in a way that could not be avoided. So far as the part played by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is concerned, I stand by that body which, as usual, has been faithful to its traditions. Canada as a whole will not have to be ashamed of anything that has been done by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in reference to this incident.
I do not desire to discuss the question of unemployment; my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) will do so. In spite of the fact that the words are so unpleasant to the hon. member for Winnipeg North 51952-255
Centre, however, I do desire to say that the reign of the law must continue in this country, that peace and order must prevail. If there be spectacular deeds, as my hon. friend calls them, which are provided for by the criminal law, whether they constitute trespass or any other offence against the whole of the people of Canada, it is the duty of the government, in spite of the bitter words of my hon. friend, to see that the law shall prevail, and so long as I have anything to do with this government, the law shall prevail.


Mr. BENNETT:: If I may ask the right hon. gentleman a question, do his reports indicate that these men in the post office asked to be arrested and offered to go quietly if arrested.


Ernest Lapointe: The report indicates:
At five a.m. postmaster addressed the occupants informing them dominion government had instructed that they were to leave the building and advising them to do so in orderly manner, and giving them twenty minutes to pack up their effects and leave. At five twenty-five it was evident that men would not leave voluntarily. I-
That is, the officer in command of the mounted police.
-then addressed the men, "You have already heard the request of the postmaster Vancouver, and as you are taking no steps to leave you will be allowed another ten minutes after which you will be forcibly ejected." At five thirty-five I informed them that unless they started to leave gas would be used forthwith. After short interval gas was used. Simultaneously the men commenced to break plate glass windows both sides of building and large part of interior glass screens-
And so on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing about arresting men?


Mr. LANDERYOU:: Did the men offer to go out peaceably?


Ernest Lapointe: I am not so advised by the report.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I believe every hon. member sympathizes with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in his obviously unhappy position. His speech shows how unhappy he was. I am sure that as a kind man he is sorry to be the minister to be required to make the speech.
One wonders about the Sunday coup-or whatever the word may be. We remember that Mr. Hitler always struts his stuff on Sunday. It seems to me a strange day in which to evict men from a post office. Would



Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
it be because very few people are down town on a Sunday? There are not many witnesses to such a performance; or-


An hon. MEMBER:: Less would be likely to get hurt.


Miss MACPHAIL:: -was it to save lives of people who would be coming for their mail on some other day? I do not go quite as far as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in thinking that it is as good to do a thing on Sunday as on any other day. I think it is not a happy performance any day of the week, but certainly Sunday was quite the worst day. It did put the men very much at the mercy of the authorities.
I do not believe any of us think that people should go into public buildings and stay there, if it is possible for them to do anything else. But if we could not get work or relief, I wonder what we would do? We might just sit here-at least it is comfortable. That is the position. Those men could not get work or relief. What had they to do? They did the least destructive thing I can think of. I am not defending them for staying in possession, but I am saying it was a very tiresome thing to do, and I would have hated to have to do it. I hate waiting any place for a long time, and certainly they had to wait a long time. But it was not a very destructive thing to do. They stayed on and on, hoping I suppose, and really believing, that something would be done for them.
When I think of the number of people who are killed each year on our highways and the need we have for foot-paths along those highways, I do not think it would have been difficult to secure jobs for those men. We could send squads of painters out to paint farm buildings in Ontario. It will take a lot of paint, but the sooner it is done the less it will take. We could have unemployed people tear down old buildings obstructing the landscape, buildings which are anything but beautiful. It is not difficult to think up things the men could do. I do think we could have done something, and I must support the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, exactly, when he says that the position is just what it was. We still have men in Vancouver. They still have no work. They are still not on relief, and they still have to establish residence. The windows have been broken and the tear gas bombs have exploded-I do not know how expensive they are-but whatever there is in the destruction of windows and in the bursting of bombs, we have lost that much. Certainly there is a lot of bad feeling, and the problem is

exactly as it was before. As a matter of fact, I should not say that, it is not exactly as it was before, it is a good deal worse.
I have been handed a booklet, and I must say it is appropriate to read it at this moment. This is a speech, which I almost hate to quote, made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the night of the election, October 14, 1935. It is the concluding paragraph which I think should be read. I am sorry the Minister of Justice had to pinch hit for him to-day, because anyone who voices such lofty and beautiful sentiments surely could have found work for not so many men. This is the conclusion of the paragraph headed "The task of Liberalism to-day":
In the new era which dawns to-day, the struggle for the rights of the people will, in the realm of economic liberty and security, be carried on as never before.


Mr. HEAPS:: That is right; it is.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: This is interesting:
Poverty and adversity, want and misery, are the enemies which Liberalism will seek to banish from our land.
Here was the opportunity.
They have lain in wait-
I suppose he means poverty and adversity, want and misery.
-at the gate of every Canadian home during the past five years, and their menacing mien has served to destroy the souls, as well as the minds and bodies, of an ever increasing number of men, women and children in our land.
And this:
We take up at once, as our supreme task, the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty, starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance, discontent and distress in a country more blessed by Providence than any other on the face of the globe, and to gain for individual lives, and for the nation as a whole, that "health and peace and sweet content" which is the rightful heritage of all.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Does the hon. member not think conditions have very materially improved in this country since those statements were made?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Not for the men in Vancouver post office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But generally for the unemployed throughout Canada they have very greatly improved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the rest of the world.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: There has been an improvement, but it has not been very great. For the unemployed people the improvement does not matter at all. If we have managed to do better for many, ought we not to go

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
much farther for the sake of that last few thousand who have been in the post office and, of all places, in the art gallery of Vancouver?
I do not intend to say anything further, but I thought that this gem ought to be made known to the House of Commons. It is very beautiful, quite as beautiful as the poetry read by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I thought we ought to have these words brought home to us again, and I do feel that in view of them the Prime Minister should-well, carry on from there.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: 
Mr. ROGERS:: If my hon. friend will permit me: has he anything to substantiate that statement?


Charles Grant MacNeil: No direct evidence in
substantiation of it, except my knowledge of this gentleman's temperament and general attitude towards this problem.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Has -my hon. friend any quotation attributed to him?


Charles Grant MacNeil: That has been the tenor of personal communications directed to me by gentlemen interested in the situation and who are extremely dissatisfied with the attitude taken by this gentleman and by his incompetence in face of the situation. As I said before, with one competent man in charge and able to direct a policy of conciliation, having a little understanding of the human elements involved, this problem could have been dissipated overnight. I would say that this man is more of a criminal than any of the men who are now incarcerated in the Vancouver police station. When I think of the situation of these men, now blacklisted and branded as criminals, it seems ironic that at this session we should be considering the reform of our penal institutions as a result of the recommendations of a royal commission. Here is a situation, largely created by the policies of the government, which can only result and will inevitably result in filling
our penal institutions with men who, if directed along other paths, would prove worthy citizens of this country. The tragedy of the whole situation is that maybe within a few short months we shall call on these very young men to risk their lives and limbs for the defence of a country which denies them any place except in gaol.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: The occasion of this discussion is a motion to adjourn the house to discuss a matter of grave national and public importance. The issue will not be determined to-day unless we hear from the Minister of Labour (M-r. Rogers) some definite policy to take care of the situation, not only in the city of Vancouver, critical as it is for the moment, but as it obtains in other places under similar circumstances so far as the men are concerned, although with less acuteness than in Vancouver.
On May 23, exactly four weeks ago to-day, when discussing this very matter, I said to the minister that as a matter of fact we are training these men to demonstrate. Enlarging upon that I pointed out that in delaying,-in not facing the issue, in failing even to appear to be getting at the roots of the problem, we were inviting demonstration. I then went on to indicate that on several previous occasions, following a demonstration, action had been taken, and what I urged then was that we should at that stage-and the men had then been in the post office for some time-face the issue and at least minimize the tendency to establish the force and value of demonstration in matters of this kind. Four weeks have passed. Nothing was done until yesterday, when the men were forcibly ejected from the post office. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), in his explanation of the government's position, said that the government had been extremely patient, that their course had been marked with forbearance, and he said also, "but the majesty of the law must be upheld." The law was the same four and five weeks ago as it is to-day. It was the same law and the same violation. If there was a violation of the law yesterday which called for federal action to uphold "the majesty of the law," the same demand was present five weeks ago. The majesty of the law is upheld when, a breach of the law having occurred, the peace officers of the country swiftly deal with the situation. That is the way to uphold the majesty of the law. Had action been taken then, it might have been taken on the ground that the men were committing a violation of the law. But things were allowed to drift. One week, two weeks; three, four,
4028	COMMONS
Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
five weeks passed. The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) and other hon. members, not weekly but two or three times a week, brought the matter to the attention of the government. Nothing was done. When it came to the ejection of these men yesterday, of course force had to be used. Of course the police will be blamed. But the police are not to blame. They did their duty, and I imagine it was a duty distasteful to them. Those who are to blame are the hon. gentlemen sitting on the treasury benches, and no one else. The unfortunate situation to-day in this house is that in discussing this matter we can only reproach the government for inaction and ineptitude; that, of course, enlists their followers in their defence, and the result in all probability will be a very empty discussion. That is, as I say, unfortunate, but there is a duty resting on members of this house; I believe it rests upon all hon. members on all sides. An incident such as this makes it imperative that we face the facts definitely and plainly.
I should like to remind the house of the genesis of this thing. It did not begin four or five weeks ago. As I pointed out on May 23, it started last July. These men almost rioted then. I saw them outside my office window, standing in the pouring rain in the autumn days, standing there from early morning until late at night.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Two years ago?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, last year. I talked to dozens of them. These young fellows went out on the streets with their little tin cans, and people going by would put in ten cents or a quarter. In that way they got sufficient to buy food. But that was disallowed, and some three hundred of them -my hon. friend from Vancouver North will correct me if I overstate the number- were arrested and sent to prison for various terms. It was not until the matter became acute, because of that, that the camps were opened up. The minister arranged for these men to go into the camps. They were there all winter. The government had the opportunity to know all about them-their history, their names, their places of origin, and so forth. If it was intended when spring came to tell these men that they must go back to their places of origin, ordinary common sense dictated that the proper officials should have taken a few of these men at a time, talked to them personally, offered to pay their way back, and sent them off in an orderly manner. But that was not done. The camps were closed and the men were turned loose, not all in one day, but over a very 
short period of time. Then, when they were turned out of the camps, when they were wandering about with nothing to do and nowhere to go, they were told, forsooth, that those who had no bona fide residence in British Columbia would have their passages paid back to their places of origin. They know, I know, anybody who has given any thought to the subject knows, that very few of these men dare to go back to their places of origin in the expectation of getting assistance, for the simple reason that having been away they have lost their domicile. Some of them have been away for three or four years, and many of them are and have been transients for years. Here, for instance, is a man who was born, let us say, in Oshawa. He goes to northern Ontario and works in the mines, or the woods, or some other place, and he loses his job. He drifts to the prairies and gets work for a few months and loses that job through shutting down and the vagaries of employment in those days. Finally he winds up in British Columbia. Well, where is his domicile? Is Oshawa going to take the responsibility for him? Certainly not; and the minister knows it very well. If these men had been moved back in large numbers to their so-called places of origin they would have been met with the same stony stare they received elsewhere, and so they were turned loose in Vancouver.
We are not dealing with pieces of machinery or something of that kind; we are dealing with human lives, with men, most of whom have some element of self-respect -at least they had; some of them have not much now, I am afraid. But they did have self-respect, and I know from personal conversation with these men that the vast majority of them merely ask for an opportunity to work. I will grant you that there are always to be found in bodies of men some who are unworthy of very much attention. What the percentage is, one cannot say exactly, but I venture to say that the vast majority of these men, eighty or ninety per cent of them, merely ask for an opportunity to work. That is all they ask. But now they are turned loose in Vancouver and nothing is done. The provincial government says it is not responsible; the dominion government says it is not responsible. But what are the men to do in the meantime? They walked into the post office and another building and took possession. I confess that at the time I thought this was an extraordinary action and I was shocked. The Minister of Justice says that no one had any alternative to offer. I will tell him what I thought should have been done at once-

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
and by the way for a period of forty-eight hours some five hundred of them occupied a hotel as well. I suggest that the moment that crisis arose there should have been no quibbling about jurisdiction but they should have been taken either to the old horse show building, or to some vacant buildings in the exhibition ground, which could easily have been obtained, or to the drill hall- there is one close to the post office, a few blocks away-or to some other public building and given shelter and food for the time being while the two governments wrestled with the question of responsibility. That is what should have been done, and if it had been done there would have been no trouble.
But the minister adopted a policy which he thought was indicative of the strong man. He was going to close the camps on the first of May; he made it known definitely and he said, "This will solve the problem. These men must get out now and get busy for themselves." Well, time was, prior to the great depression, or rather I should say prior to the change in industrial methods in the last fifteen or twenty years, when these men could have found work here and there throughout the country. I went through a period of hard times in British Columbia forty-five years ago when I first went there, and I know that there was a period in the nineties when the real ultimate poverty of the whole country was worse than it is to-day. But there was never a time when men could not get something to do; they might only get their board for it, but they got something. There was seldom any necessity for a man to be destitute, and those that were destitute could be, and were, taken care of by the community. But what has happened in the last ten, fifteen or twenty years? No one knows better than the minister, because it is a pant of the new economics of the time. By the introduction of new machinery whole industries have been upset and in some instances tens of thousands of men have been thrown out of work in one industry. Great bodies of men have been turned loose in the country, not only in Canada but in the United States and other parts of the world as well. In other words there is a new economic condition to which we have not yet adjusted ourselves. We are only in the process of readjustment. Now, if we recognize that, then it follows as night follows day that during that process of readjustment the government of the country must take a certain responsibility which would not be necessary under the old regime; and I hope that with the adjustments that some of us believe can be made, as the years go by, these temporary responsibilities
will disappear. But they are here, and they were certainly very much present when these men were turned out of the camps on the first of May or thereabouts.
The issue is not going to be determined simply by the government listening to this debate and the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour saying their little say and thinking that that ends it. That does not end it. When these men were rejected from the post office yesterday, eight thousand people gathered in the Powell street grounds, and of that gathering a large number, estimated at eight hundred, marched to the police station, inflamed by a sense of hopelessness, a sense of injustice, a sense of the incompetence of leadership in governments in the country. I say that with that sense of hopelessness in their hearts they marched to the police station, and it was only by the advice of some in whom they trusted that they did not indulge in another riot there.
I am the last member of this house to condone rioting for one moment, but I know human nature and I know something about men in mobs. I know that you cannot expect to find a large number of men gathered together, suffering from a sense of injustice and the knowledge of grievances, without there being danger of violence. It is just as natural as anything else to the human race. It is one of the unpleasant facts of life, and the duty of responsible government is to foresee these things, to anticipate and avoid them, to see that they do not happen, instead of waiting until they do happen or having to exercise force as was done yesterday. I can see that the police were compelled to carry out their instructions, but as I said a moment ago if the law was violated yesterday it was violated five weeks ago, and that is where the government deserves censure for its delay in taking action in the matter.
The Minister of Justice says the government have been upbraided because they have been so lenient. I suggest that if those who addressed the government in this gentle chiding manner had spoken their minds they would have said that their criticism was because of the government's ineptitude and not because of its leniency. There is no element of leniency or of kindness in allowing men to remain in these buildings for five weeks and at the end ejecting them by force. The problem should have been faced at the first. Leniency then becomes finally an offence on the part of the government rather than something to be complimented upon. The government is not to be commended because of its patience and forbearance; rather at this time the government should be, if not inspired
4030	COMMONS
Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
at least forced into some action by members on all sides of the house-some action that will grapple with the problem in a real way. I simply say this to the government: The issue is not settled with the close of this debate. These men are there, and as the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) said a moment ago-he and I and others are so advised-over one thousand loggers have been thrown out of work on the Pacific coast during the past few weeks. I do not know whether the minister knows just the type of men that these loggers are. Let me say to him that they are the most daring and the finest men in the world. They are a magnificent type of worker. Knowing human nature as I do, I look with some apprehension upon the possible effect on these men of the disturbances that have occurred and which we have been discussing. The time has long passed when action should be taken, and I say to the government that the responsibility for the trouble that may occur and for what has taken place lies clearly at their door.


John Charles Landeryou: Mr. Speaker, gas bombs, beatings, the forbearance of the exercise of force by the government or the sympathies of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Punning) will not solve the unemployment problem. It is unfortunate that we cannot solve this problem by exercising the power of disallowance. An hon. member suggests to me that we should disallow the unemployed. I agree with what was said by Mr. Campbell, the Minister of Public Works in the government of Ontario. He said:
People by hundreds of thousands are out of work. The truth is that restriction of currency and credit is throttling business. Can you find me an economist from Halifax to Vancouver who will say that things are right with us? Yet when anyone speaks out and says that someching should be done about it, about the best these critics can do is to descend to personalities and chorus "crackpot" at him.
It would appear that the government are attempting to hide behind the constitution. They claim that the provincial government and the municipality must accept responsibility in this matter. The closest cooperation existed among the provincial police, the civic police and the federal police in evicting these men from the public buildings they occupied. If we could obtain the same sort of cooperation among this government, the municipality and the provincial government to provide these men with work, to arrive at some solution of the problem of the lack of purchasing power, then we would have no more difficulties like this. We know that the city of Vancouver is not financially able

to offer a solution to this unemployment situation. We know that the provinces are not financially able to carry out their constitutional responsibilities in this regard. The government headed by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) recognized in 1930 that unemployment was a national problem, and a special session was called to deal with the matter. It is true the right hon. gentleman was unable to solve the problem, and he perished in the attempt. In 1935 the leader of the present Liberal government promised a number of things. In answer to a remark made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) the right hon. gentleman stated that generally conditions had improved in Canada. I should like to say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the conditions with relation to the unemployed have not generally improved.


An hon. MEMBER:: Certainly they have.


John Charles Landeryou: A Liberal member
says, "Certainly they have." If you consider the cutting of relief grants by the federal government an improvement, if you call the cutting of relief scales when the cost of living is going up an improvement, then I agree with the hon. member. I am told that unemployment has increased every month of this year. The fact of the matter is that this government has not solved the problem. There has been a general increase in export trade since the period 1930 to 1935, when the members of the Conservative party occupied the treasury benches. There is no question that there has been a general improvement in external trade, but that has not been due to any policy pursued by the Liberal government. That improvement was in line with the general improvement in world conditions and prices. At the same time there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of taxes taken out of the pockets of the citizens of Canada-from 8326.000,000 in 1933 to $500,000,000 odd in 1937. Whatever prosperity may have been created is being taken away from the people in the form of increased taxes.


Mr. WOOD:: But they have the money with which to pay their taxes.


John Charles Landeryou: That does not help them very much. The situation in Vancouver was created by a number of men who were unable to find work and who were forced to take definite action to draw the attention of the government and the people of Canada to their plight. They are willing and anxious to work, and yet the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) has not offered them work in

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
any shape or form. Why is it that 11,000,000 people cannot adequately provide themselves with sufficient food, clothing and shelter when they occupy a country capable of providing for the needs of 100,000,000 or 150,000,000 people? Surely there is something that this government can do. They were going to take over the issue of money and credit in terms of public need. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) says that we have complete control over the monetary policy of this country. Why should we not exercise that control? Why should we not issue the money and credit to meet the needs, not only of the hundreds of men in Vancouver but the hundreds of thousands of unemployed throughout Canada?
It may be out of order to discuss matters of money at this time, but I should like to point out that these men are suffering from one thing only, the lack of purchasing power.
I ask the government to fulfil their promises made to the people of Canada in 1935, namely, that they would abolish poverty in the midst of plenty by properly controlling the issue of money and credit. Now that these men have been evicted from public buildings their condition is possibly worse than it was before. I do hope the Minister of Labour can do something constructive for them. Give them work. If you cannot give them work, take care of their needs as far as food, clothing and shelter are concerned until you can provide work for them.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, this is an occasion on which we might derive satisfaction from saying to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and the government, "We told you so." However, there would be no satisfaction in making that statement, even though what we told the Minister of Labour has come to pass. Only a man who was totally oblivious to what has occurred under similar circumstances in the past five years could have assumed that the situation in Vancouver would be settled without trouble of the kind that occurred yesterday. From this corner we have continued to press the Minister of Labour to act. We have taken the position that a conciliatory attitude by the government would easily overcome the existing difficulties:	It
was not a question of whether the action taken by the men was right or wrong. Similar action under one set of circumstances may be right, and under another, may be wrong. The point is that these men were justified in taking almost any action whatsoever because of the condition in which they found themselves.
Almost exactly three years ago we were faced with this same problem. Men left the
city of Vancouver by boarding freight trains with the intention of coming to Ottawa to lay their grievances before the government. On various occasions at that time we tried to bring the matter to the attention of the government by a motion similar to the one moved to-day. We were unsuccessful, the government taking the position that it was not a matter of urgent public importance. However, on July 1. 1935, a riot took place in the city of Regina. The following day we moved a motion similar to the one under consideration to-day and obtained an opportunity to state our case. I have before me Hansard for that date, from which I should like to quote very briefly. At page 4130 of Hansard for 1935 the following statement was made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who was then leader of the opposition:
It was easy for the Prime Minister to arrange for the house to be moved into supply to-day, and it would have been equally easy to have adopted the same course on the other occasions. I believe the Speaker was reflecting the attitude of mind of my right hon. friend at the time when he gave his decision that the matter was not of urgent public importance. Certainly those of us who supported the motion believed it was a matter of urgent public importance, and that unless some action were taken by the government of a conciliatory character it was almost inevitable that sooner or later something in the nature of a tragedy would be the outcome of the situation of these men moving in large numbers east, regardless of what their particular views on social questions may be.
I only wish that political parties could be as wise when they are governments as when they are in opposition. Here the Prime Minister was advocating the same course that this group and other members from British Columbia have been trying to impress upon the Minister of Labour and the government, that this was a situation that could be met by a conciliatory attitude on the part of the government, if only they would realize that the men had a just grievance. To-day, when I knew this matter was coming up, I looked up the debates of 1935. I find a wire that was sent to the present leader of the opposition,

prime minister of that day, signed by James G. Gardiner, who at that time I believe was premier of the province of Saskatchewan:
I have to-day wired Premier Bennett as follows: "Yesterday morning men indicated to your representative Mr. Burgess their willingness to disband the march and return to the points from which they came. They repeated this to Mr. Burgess and representatives of the police at 2.30. Your representatives refused to have provincial representation at that meeting. The men met us at five o'clock stating that since your representatives had refused to

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
consider this the provincial government take responsibility for disbanding men to their original camps or homes and supply them with food in the interval. While we were considering this matter police raided public meeting to arrest leaders, precipitating a riot. Men at present in buildings at fair grounds completely surrounded by police who permit no one to enter and men to leave only in twos. Police intention to force these men to Lumsden camp or starving them into submission.
That is the very action this government is taking. The men went into the post office and the government were going to starve them into submission; but unfortunately for the government the people of Vancouver would not allow these men to starve. Then Mr. Gardiner went on:
This will end in a worse riot than last night. These men should be fed where they are and immediately disbanded and sent back to camps and homes as they request without any attempt to force them into Lumsden and this should be done within next two hours. This government has a responsibility toward its citizens to provide them with ordinary protection against this imported trouble. We would ask you to immediately withdraw orders issued affecting the liberty of individuals within this province and affecting the law and order of this province. You might assume that we are as much concerned about law and order in this country as you can be and deal with the elected representatives of this province regarding matters concerning our people instead of through an appointed political representative.
And this government is dealing through another political representative in the city of Vancouver.
We are asking you if you are going to feed these men within the next two hours and are asking you to instruct us within two hours what plans are to be made for their disbandment.
Now, these men having been driven out of the art gallery and post office, I am asking the government what provision is being made to feed them. Will the Minister of Labour tell this house if the government have a policy or a program to take care of these men in . the meantime? It must be remembered that they do not cease to be a menace to the city of Vancouver once they are removed from the post office. They are at large in the city; they are without means to support themselves. Consequently as human beings they have to find food and shelter wherever it can be found. I repeat that before this debate closes the Minister of Labour should give the house an undertaking that these men will be fed until some attempt has been made to provide them with work.
In an interview given the press this morning the Prime Minister said the governments- meaning the provincial government, the federal 
government and the civic government-had been very patient; but as I see it I do not think there is any great credit due them for patience in this instance. There is no credit due the members of these governments because they are not at all in uncomfortable circumstances. They are well fed, possibly too well fed. They are well clothed. They have nice homes to go to. They have a certain amount of security, at least until the next election, so I do not see that they have been put to any very great discomfort. But here were men who for years have been deprived of all hope, of all opportunity to live as normal men should live.
The Minister of Justice regretted that there was any injury to the men in removing them from the post office. Let me say here that the physical injury to these men does not amount to anything. Physical injuries can be healed; nature will repair the hurt. The injury that has been done these men is cumulative, an injury to their mental and psychological make-up. It is an injury to the spirit, which will leave its scar on these men as long as they live. The longer we keep them in the position they are in to-day, the greater the injury to them and the greater our difficulties are going to be.
Again, the men in the art gallery offered to submit to peaceful arrest. According to the press when the men were informed by Chief Foster of the city of Vancouver, who I am told, and as stated by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), has acted with every consideration during the troublesome period, that the police were going to use tear gas to drive them out, they offered to submit to peaceful arrest so that they might be taken to the police station. But to do that the government would have had to feed them, and as the crime was not serious enough they would not do that.
What solution has the Minister of Labour for the difficulty confronting not only these men but the people of the city of Vancouver? Where do we go from here? Where are those men going to eat to-morrow? Where are they going to find shelter? Where are they going to find the things which are necessary to enable them to become ordinary, normal citizens of Vancouver and of this dominion? Unless the Minister of Labour has some answer to those questions, let me tell him and the house that we have not heard the last of the trouble which took place in Vancouver in the early hours of Sunday morning.
Mr. E. J. POOLE (Red Deer); Mr. Speaker,
I should like to add my word of protest to those which have already been spoken

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
against the action taken by the government.
I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) made an admirable defence, and particularly when he really had a defenceless case.
He told us of the kindness of our police force. He told us what a great body of men they were, and said that the police asked the men to move. But he did not say that the police had bombs in their possession when they went to make the request. They took with them weapons of persuasion-and I am not referring to the tongue. They took clubs and bombs. A few days ago hon. members on this side of the house warned the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) as to what would happen. We said this would be a second Regina.
And so we find force politics in Canada. We have no right to criticize the Hitlers and Mussolinis while we masquerade under the name of democracy, because we are not as honest. That is why. I suppose just before the next election these men will be employed, because then they would be of use to some political party in casting their ballots. Politics has become a game of strategy, a shuffle for political advantage, a philosophy of opportunism, and a scramble to protect vested interests. The sooner we get down to those fundamental truths, and the sooner we understand what is happening in this country, the sooner people will remove obstacles in the way of security.
What do these men want? What crimes have they committed? They are the casualties resulting from the failure of this and previous governments to deal with facts. Industry has abdicated, and now takes no responsibility for employees or unemployed. And every year as the industrial machine speeds up and export markets contract more men will seek the protection of governments that they may live. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) said there were two laws in this country, he was not stating an untruth. That has been proved on innumerable occasions. First, let us compare the treatment of the Home Owners Security Act passed in Alberta with that accorded the padlock law of Quebec, and we find another failure of the government, so far as democracy is concerned.
We speak of democracy, that ideal which we never attained. The seed of dissension is sown in the country through governments refusing to accept responsibility. The men are turned out of industry, because industry does not want them. Those men are thrown on the market and some must go begging.
Then one hon. member on the government side asks: What constructive suggestion do you make? They look towards us. Let them ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) who said, "When we are elected we will manufacture 8500,000,000 of new money." That is the gentleman who now sits on the ministerial benches. Then, the Prime Minister, speaking in 1935, said, "We will issue credit in terms of public need."
Will hon. members of the house ever know the purpose of an economic system? Will they ever learn that we produce goods so that people may use them, and so that we may bring security to the human family? Do we realize that the greatest asset of a nation is the youth of that nation?


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I think I must call the hon. member's attention to the fact that the motion before the house has to do with the situation in Vancouver.


Mr. POOLE:: And I am dealing with it. This is quite relevant, I assure you, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Edward Foster: I think the hon. member is getting away from* the subject.


Eric Joseph Poole: I am dealing with the Vancouver situation, and the position in which the men out there are placed, through the attitude taken by this government, and through the change in industrial relations.
In Canada there has developed a growing despair in the hearts of unemployed men. If the depression was two years old one might understand it, but the fact is it is a condition which has continued over eight long years. Still nothing is done. The question which occurred to me to-day was this: Why were not the men ejected from the public building in Vancouver prior to the Saskatchewan elections? Why wait until eleven days after the elections?


An hon. MEMBER:: That does not hurt.


Eric Joseph Poole: It should hurt, if it does not. In answer to my colleague an hon. member stated a moment ago that the people have more money to-day and that there is greater prosperity. That is not so. The fact is that the standard of living in Canada has been reduced. The increase in taxation has resulted in a reduced standard of living especially among unemployed married people.
This struggle is not new; it is the age-long struggle of the masses for security. Years ago the argument was used that the population was too great for the amount of goods they could produce. The excuse in this enlightened
4034	COMMONS
Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
day, in the year 1938, is that the country now has so much wealth but the unemployed cannot have any part of it because they have no money. The only terms upon which they can exist is to have written across their shoulders with shame the fact that they are public charges. Right across this land in the last two years there have been attacks in the press, on many occasions, to discredit those men who, after all, are only the forerunners of thousands more who must follow. These men were seeking work. This government has the power to provide it. These men represent wealth; they have the ability to produce. But what do we find? The iron heel of a distorted democracy is the answer to their pleas. You tell me conditions have changed for the better in this country? I say, yes they have, as shown by a rise of 17 per cent in profits for industry, but they have not changed for the better for the masses of our people who are disinherited. The time has come in this country when every section of the house should forget politics and deal with this all important national problem of getting our youth back to work. The youth of the nation is the greatest asset we have. But I suppose if we mention that, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will tell us: We have no money. Mr. Speaker, we do not need to borrow it. Money is not the all important thing. It can be manufactured. These men who were in the post office and are in gaol today could be released and put to work at good -wages within twenty-four hours, and they would be helping to build up this country and once again take their part in society as Canadians.
I was struck by the statement of the Minister of Justice when he spoke of patience and forbearance, and I added in my notes

patience, forbearance, with a club. I often wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether these riots that occur from time to time in this country are not the signposts to that greater evil, civil war, because conditions, bad as they are, are getting increasingly worse as time goes on. The same protest against poverty has already driven the nations of Europe into civil war, and we are sowing the seeds of a civil war in Canada for to-morrow.
As I listened to the prayers that were read from the Speaker's chair to-day in both English and French, and in particular that sentence: "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven," I wondered if our legislative activities here could ever be said to reflect what goes on in heaven. If the Lord were Prime Minister here, I am quite sure that he would not have ordered those men to be ejected, gassed and clubbed. I think the first thing he would do would be to see that they

received of the abundance which he has provided for the human family. That, Mr. Speaker, is the job of this government.
There always seems to be a disposition to bury this problem, to put these unemployed masses into some remote spot, so that there will be no more mental anguish for the government. The greater the numbers of the unemployed grow, the greater the governmental impotence to deal with this national question. We talk all around the problem, but we will not deal with the kernel of the problem.
When some people speak of the unemployed, they speak as though apologies should be made for them, as if they were less respectable because they are unemployed. But the men who were evicted from those government premises in Vancouver are just as respectable as any man in this house. They have just as much right to live, and just as much right to opportunity as any man in this house. They have just as much right to occupy that public building as anyone here, because it is public property, and I do not know of a better place they could go when they had no place to sleep. I am reminded once again of the saying of the Man of Galilee: "The foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head." That has been the story of the human family, and possibly there was some justification in the days of scarcity.
I have asked these questions of the government on innumerable occasions: Are we short of anything in this country? Have we the natural resources? Have we the ability to produce more? If we have not enough, then the first thing to do is to place these men at work, and your poverty and riots are all over. But if we have enough, there is no logical reason why they cannot have sufficient for their needs. But unfortunately we are still genuflecting before the god of gold, placed high on a pedestal. Here you have the government of Canada, with a solution in their hands and the power to solve this problem. They masquerade as wise and just men, and at the same time abandon the unemployed to their fate. When the unemployed ask for bread, we turn out a squad of policemen with riot guns, bombs and so forth. As the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) said a few moments ago, in a few months' time we shall perhaps be giving these men a new suit of clothes, the first they have had in eight years, a khaki suit perhaps, and saying to them: Go and fight for Canada. It reminds me of an unemployed man with a blanket on his back, who asked me if I had the price of a meal. I took him to supper

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
with me and tried to find out his philosophy and his ideas. I discussed with him the defence estimates, which were then before the house, and he asked me if I thought there was going to be a war. I said, "Things look pretty bad, but I do not know." He said, "I do not know what I would fight for. All I have is a blanket, and if anyone wants that more than I do, he can have it." That was all of Canada that he had.
We can discuss unemployment for hours, but I do not think much good comes from any discussion from this side of the house. Governments seem to be set in their ways and to take the attitude:	No matter
what should come from the other side of the house, it is not going to be accepted; nobody is going to tell us what to do. If there is ever written down in the pages of our future history a story of riots and civil war, and widespread poverty, let us keep in mind one thing, that it was the fault of mortal man. The immortal Man has provided everything, but man did not have the intestinal fortitude or the courage to use those things which God provided in such abundance. I have often thought it might be a good thing if we could organize the churches throughout this country to bring pressure to bear on this government or any government that fails to deal with this problem. Police action such as we have heard of in Vancouver, and the police action which took place at Regina, are stimulants to chaos. They stimulate the hatreds of the disinherited members of society, which will eventually lead to bloody conflict between the haves and the have-nots.
You gentlemen on the government benches have it in your power to make this country the best in the world. You have it in your power to bring about a security never before known. You have in your hands the destiny of what might well be the most glorious nation this world has ever known. You have it in your hands to give a lead to a confused world, and members on this side of the house, irrespective of their politics, are prepared to jump in any time and do all they can to help you solve this problem. But we shall not do it until such time as we break down the barricades which exist in politics, until we realize that if a man has a suggestion which is worth anything it should be accepted irrespective of the part of the house in which he may sit. In a national crisis of this kind, with thousands of our citizens facing poverty and insecurity, with thousands of children being born, almost as it were, on the bread line; with the hopes of thousands of our citizens blasted, with life just a disillusion, surely this is the time when all hon. members should
get together, discuss this problem, find a solution and apply it.


Mrs. MARTHA LOUISE BLACK (Yukon):: Like the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), I never see a young man walking the streets, begging, but I say, "There, but for the grace of God, goes my boy." I have felt keenly this sit-down strike in Vancouver; I have kept thoroughly posted regarding it from members of the government and from friends in Vancouver, and I have wondered just what would be the outcome. It is a matter of absolute indifference to me what promises the politicians made in 1930. It is a matter of absolute indifference to me what promises the politicians made in 1935. But it is not a matter of indifference to me what we in this house are going to do to-day for the good of our country. Law and order must prevail. There is no doubt at all about that. But we have been taught that we can temper justice with mercy. No matter what efforts or what suggestions the government put forth to help these unemployed, notwithstanding the crime that they have committed -for they did commit a crime when they occupied federal buildings-no matter what the government will propose in order to help them, I would certainly support that government to the best of my ability, in the house and out of it.
This is a time for us to consider not so much party as men. We have a very difficult, a very peculiar situation confronting us. Thousands are out of employment. It is not a question of whether they are taking part in a sit-down strike, or whether they belong to this party or that; the question is, What are we going to do to help make those men worthy citizens, not of British Columbia or of Saskatchewan or Ontario, but of Canada? If the time should come when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) needs men, he will take them from all over Canada, irrespective of provinces; he is not going to ask what is their place of birth, their home or their residence. Two-thirds of these young men have no homes. They have left their families; they have drifted, as other hon. members have said, from place to place, from the coast on the east to the coast on the west. They cannot go back to the widowed mother who is trying to take care of other children; they cannot possibly go back to * their homes, under other circumstances. We must do something for those men. There is no territory and no province in the matter of unemployment; it is a problem of vital interest to everyone.
I have felt the utmost pity for and sympathy with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers).
4036	COMMONS
Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
I believe that he has honestly tried to do his best. We do not always agree. I have not felt that invariably he has done what others might well have done. However, for eight years the governments-we, you and I, men and women all over this country-have been building roads to perdition for our young people. We have been helping them on this downward path. Now, I say, it is time we built a better road. It is time we gave these men work and ceased to plead that we have not the money; for if this building, which cost many millions of dollars, were burned down to-day, there would be plenty of millions available to rebuild it. On occasions of great stress and emergency the money is always to be found.
As I said before, it is a matter of perfect indifference to me what this or some other government promised. It is a matter of indifference to me what comments are made by newspapers on the other side of the line, how bitterly they criticize our Canada. It is impossible to pick up a paper published on the other side without reading of rape, murder, arson and kidnapping; but if we, a puny ten millions, have a paltry sit-down strike, others criticize us. Let them begin at home. Let us begin at home. From the bottom of my heart I as a mother plead with the government to try to find work for the unemployed, not merely in British Columbia or somewhere in the east, but throughout Canada, in the spirit in which we speak of 'her when we say:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both east and west.
Let us see to it that while we enforce justice, law and order, we also enforce help for the under-dog. No one can uphold those who disobey the law; but let us from now on give those men work, so that they will have no cause to disobey the law, and will become a source of pride to us and to our country.


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: I regret very much to have to sit in the house and listen to so many bitter speeches and bitter attacks as have been made this afternoon. It is unfortunate that some hon. members do not refrain from making statements which may incite the people of Vancouver and cause more trouble to those who are out of employment and to those who are responsible for maintaining order and good government in that city.
This trouble did not come on hurriedly. It has been growing for some years. I am not, by a long shot, coming to the rescue of the government; nor do I exonerate my hon. friends to my left, who were probably as much to blame as anyone else for the situation two or three years ago. We then 
had the camps-single men unemployment camps, I think they were called-which were established by the Hon. Donald Sutherland, the then Minister of Militia. Agitators got into those camps and created a lot of trouble. Hon. members to my left no doubt incited the men in those camps and made them more dissatisfied than they would otherwise have been; then my friends of the government succumbed, because their wish-bone was where their back-bone should have been; they had not any back-bone, and in deference to the wishes of the group to my left they closed the camps, and so brought about the conditions we have to-day.
I think all hon. members must recognize that the Hon. Donald Sutherland was a man of ability in carrying on the work of his department, a man with a big heart, whose only thought was to do something in the interest of young men who were unemployed. In those camps they were well fed, well clothed, and got plenty of exercise. The trouble began through agitation in the camps. That is what has brought about this trouble to-day. If the government had not shut down those camps, they would have had a place to put these unemployed men and keep them away from difficulty and trouble. I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) that the time when they took possession of the post office and the other building was the time when they should nave been removed immediately and put in the army or some other suitable place where they could be taken care of. That is what should be done with them to-day. I do not condone the action of the men in going into the post office building because they had no right to do so, but the government showed weakness in failing to deal with the matter five weeks ago. I regret very much what happened in Vancouver yesterday. I think it was most unfortunate.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Poole) suggested a few minutes ago that action to take care of the men could be financed without money. An idea came to me while he was speaking. It seems to me that a plan to take all the inmates out of the gaols and put them to work without cost to the country would be a good thing for the Conservative party to adopt as one of the planks of its platform at the coming convention, because any government that did that would have no difficulty in being elected. If you took everybody out of gaol and put them to work in the way my 'hon. friend suggested, you would be sure to be elected.
I hope the government will take action with respect to this grave situation in

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
Vancouver. I realize the government's position, and I think they realize it themselves and are sorry that they did not act long ago. They should certainly have taken definite steps to deal with the situation in the last four or five weeks. However, both governments and business men get into difficulties once in a while, and while sometimes there is bitter criticism and harsh words are spoken, there is no doubt about it that the want of good judgment is responsible for a great deal of our troubles. Governments do not see a vision of the future any more than the business world does, and that is what we lack to-day both in business and in governments. Any one should have foreseen the difficulty. Any one should have known that the moment the camps were abandoned in British Columbia trouble would develop. The camps were established for a purpose, and they served that purpose well. Everything was getting along splendidly until there began to be agitation in the camps, and I must say that some of the speeches made by my good friends in this house helped to keep the men agitated in Vancouver, so that finally, under this spineless government, the men there became victims of the policy that closed down the camps.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): On the whole, the discussion has proceeded, as the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) has remarked, without harsh or bitter words. Certainly it is better so, and in what I propose to say in regard to the situation in Vancouver I shall not depart from this even tenor of debate.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who moved the motion, is not in his seat, but doubtless he will be here before six o'clock. I wish he were here because in his opening remarks he made some references to the situation which I do not think are borne out by the facts. He stated the men came back from the camps, could find no work, and in desperation occupied the post office. This was described as an attempt to bring their position to the attention of the provincial and federal governments. I believe the house will remember that these men who have been in Vancouver during the last few weeks were employed through the winter months in the forestry conservation camps. As a matter of fact, many of them had as much employment in these camps as a number of other people in this country have employment in seasonal industry; that is to say, they did not go to Vancouver in a destitute condition. In the second place it should also be understood, without imputing motives at all, that there was a definitely organized movement by these men, while they were still in these forestry camps, to return to Vancouver in order that by a mass demonstration they might bring about either a reopening of the forestry camps or the adoption of some special works projects which would be made available to them. I have made that statement previously in this house and I believe it is fully borne out by the facts as we know them. I simply place these factors of the situation before hon. members in order that we may understand first that these men came from winter employment to Vancouver; that they were not destitute when they arrived in Vancouver, and that their situation was not desperate enough to induce them to occupy the post office and the art gallery in the manner in which they did.


Mr. COLD WELL:: On the average, how much did they have coming to them in deferred payments?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As I have pointed out before, the deferred pay vouchers amounted to $4 a week, and the amount that would be coming to any individual man would depend upon the number of weeks he had been in the camps. The deferred pay vouchers expired on May 14. I believe I have given that information to the house already.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: And what was the maximum number of weeks in which they could work?


Norman McLeod Rogers: To my knowledge, the majority of the men worked about two months in the forestry conservation camps. They were paid thirty cents an hour, and they paid seventy-five cents a day for board while in the camps. On May 17 Mr. Pearson, minister of labour for British Columbia, made a public statement in these terms:
During the winter season of 1937-38 the provincial government in cooperation with the dominion government, have provided relief through our forest development plan to 1,800 single homeless men who were recent arrivals from other provinces and in the province before November 1, 1937.
We believe that during the summer months it is possible for these single men who are our own residents to find sufficient work to provide for themselves during the summer and in many cases also during the winter, but the added burden of the accumulation from other provinces makes it difficult for our own residents to get the work that is available.
The province of British Columbia does not intend to make provincial forest development projects available to those from outside the province next winter, nor to provide any other form of assistance for them.
We feel that it is desirable that the 1,800 men who have been supported in this province during the past winter in forest development projects should return to the province from which they came as rapidly as possible.
4038	COMMONS
Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
In order to make this possible the provincial government will assist those men to return to the province of previous residence, and it is requested that these men make application to 581 Homer street, Vancouver, for such assistance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were not supported solely by the province.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The camps? No; the
dominion contributed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of fact we
made a contribution. I am referring to what the minister read just now.


Norman McLeod Rogers: We did contribute fifty
per cent of the cost of these forestry conservation camps, and we did so to meet a peculiar situation, namely, a flow of transients from the prairies to British Columbia during the winter months. Hon. members who are familiar with the climate of British Columbia can readily understand why the movement should be in that direction in the winter months. The farm employment plan which dealt with single, homeless men in the prairie provinces was not applicable in British Columbia, and, therefore, that province asked us as a dominion government to cooperate with them in providing these special forestry conservation projects for single, homeless men in the winter months. It was not an innovation to close these camps at the end of the winter season. That course had been followed in the previous year without any untoward incident. Actually the farm employment plan in the prairie provinces was terminated at the same time, and advance notice was given of the intention of the governments concerned to bring this plan to an end at the end of April of this year.
The statement has been made that the majority of the men concerned in the Vancouver incident were non-residents. The report of Mr. Pearson of May 17 states that there were 1,800 non-resident transients in the forestry conservation camps during the winter months. The actual number at the closing of the camps is known. As I remember, it was close to 1,500, and we know that over 800 of the deferred pay vouchers were cashed outside British Columbia. That would leave a total of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 700 non-residents who were in Vancouver at the time the post office was occupied originally.
Just a few days ago the youth council of the city of Vancouver made a survey of the men who were actually in occupation of the art gallery and the post office in order to determine how many were non-residents and how many were single, unemployed men properly resident in British Columbia. Fol-
lowing that survey, which was made public, Mr. Pearson made the following statement:
Statement of youth council confirmed views of government in regard to its stand on sit down strike in Vancouver. Strike started with sixteen hundred transients participating and now according to the youth council survey there are only one hundred of the originals. Thus fifteen hundred transients have left and have apparently found the means of livelihood.
Some members of this house may have seen the report of the survey being conducted by the youth council. It showed clearly that of those who took part in the demonstrations in the art gallery and the post office not more than 100 could be described as non-resident.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the minister basing his statement entirely on the survey that was made?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is the only information we have as to those who were in occupation of the art gallery and the post office. The government has no reason to believe that the facts are not as stated, nor do I have any reason to assume that the youth council would have any motive in stating the facts other than correctly.
Why is it that this house should now be discussing this matter upon the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that we should give our attention to a question of urgent public importance? What has altered the situation is the fact that on Sunday morning the men who were in occupation of the art gallery and post office were asked to vacate these buildings. Having refused to do so, they were evicted by the city police. At the post office the city police had the cooperation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. What is the proximate cause of the riot that occurred in Vancouver? The proximate cause surely is this, that these men who were asked to withdraw peaceably, and who were given thirty minutes to do so, declined to comply with that request, made in one case by the postmaster and in the other by the secretary of the board of trustees of the art gallery. Had they complied with that request; had they taken advantage of the time given, there would have been no riots; no injuries would have been suffered by policemen and men, and there would have been no destruction of private property. What did occur was the result of the fact that when asked to leave these buildings the men refused to do so.
Had those men complied with that request which was made after great patience and forbearance so far as the maintenance of law and order was concerned, would their position have been any different from that of other

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
groups of unemployed in cities and towns right across this dominion? I put that directly to members of this house. Had these men accepted the advice given, they would have been in precisely the same position as other groups of unemployed in other towns and cities with respect to available employment. They would not have suffered discrimination.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the minister think that would have helped very much?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps my hon. friend
will permit me to finish. I am not aware that I interrupted him in his rather vehement discourse this afternoon. A short while ago I met a delegation of unemployed from the city of Charlottetown, at the other extremity of this dominion. It so happens that the little province of Prince Edward Island has suffered from rather exceptional weather conditions during the past year. To-day there is a greater number of unemployed in Charlottetown than they have had at any time in the past ten years. So they appealed to us. This delegation from Charlottetown was composed of men some of whom were unemployed themselves. They put their case before us, and I told them, as my predecessors have told similar delegations in times past, that the government had made certain appropriations for relief and for public works and that within those appropriations we would do what we could to meet the situation in the city of Charlottetown. Those men set out certain projects which they thought would help particularly to meet the situation, and they left their information with me. It has been found possible to proceed with some of those, but it will not be possible to proceed with others.
The point I wish to make is this: Those men made their proposals and then accepted the decision that the government was prepared to do certain things, but was not prepared to carry out all their requests. They went back to Charlottetown and made their report to the unemployed of that city. The unemployed of that city did not occupy the post office or any other public building. They recognized the fact that any government with a sense of its responsibilities can do much in certain directions, but cannot, and least of all under dictation, provide special works projects for special groups of people in special districts in this dominion. I suggest that in effect that was the purpose of this organized demonstration in Vancouver.
You will find nothing in the correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Labour and the head of the unemployed committee which could by any stretch of the imagination be described as provocative. From the 51952-256
beginning I have been willing to concede that these men were honestly desirous of obtaining work. I pointed out to Mr. Matts of the unemployed committee that these men could not expect and need not expect that this government would provide special works projects for this particular group of people. I believe that position was sound then and I believe it is no less sound now. Despite the fact that these men, under ill advice, have chosen illegal methods to bring their plight to the attention of the government, there has been no desire on the part of the government to discriminate against them. At the present time these men stand on the same footing as other unemployed in British Columbia or in other provinces to which they may have gone. Surely it cannot be argued for a moment that we should provide special works projects for a group of men who have adopted the methods these men have adopted and decline to provide special works projects for the unemployed of Charlottetown and other places who have gone about their business in an entirely proper and legal way.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister permit a question?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If I might continue, I do not feel that this discussion ought to be prolonged. As I said at the beginning, I think it is fortunate that this matter has been discussed in temperate language and that there has been no resort to harsh and bitter words. Looking to the future, I can only say that we, with the other governments concerned, will do what lies in our power to see that employment is made available to these men on the same terms as it is made available to others who are in the same position. More cannot be said; and less, I think, cannot justly be said.
As a matter of fact, only a few days ago Premier Pattullo gave a full statement, which appeared in the Vancouver papers, of the public work that will be available in British Columbia during the coming summer. Some two weeks before that, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) made a statement with regard to special work which would be conducted through federal contributions. The total amount of public works in British Columbia in the way of highway construction will be in the neighbourhood of two and a half million dollars, quite apart from other public expenditures which will be made by various departments of government; nor does that at all cover such work as .may be made available through private enterprise. Some have said here to-day it is not reasonable to expect that any work

4040	COMMONS
Unemploy merit-Vancouver Situation
will be made available through the expansion of private enterprise. Our figures show that there were 15,000 placements made through the employment service in British Columbia last year, which surely suggests that in the course of the summer months opportunities for employment are made available from time to time. And I am convinced it is far from the truth to say that you can judge as to the employment possibilities in British Columbia or any other province only by a recital of the public works which are either actually under construction or in contemplation. In this country we have never depended upon public works as the sole means of providing employment, and I think it is a mistake to base any of our discussions upon such an assumption. Public works have their place in an employment policy, and we have tried to give them their proper place. As a government we have continued to do what we could to expand employment opportunities in British Columbia and elsewhere.
These men who unfortunately, under wrong advice, took part in this demonstration in Vancouver which had such an unhappy ending should think carefully before they lend themselves to this means of bringing their position before governments. I have every sympathy for their position; so has every member of this house, irrespective of party; but I do suggest that it is not proper for one group of unemployed in one section of the country to take the position that they will occupy public buildings until given special works projects in that section of the country. No government, I submit, whatever its character might be, could accept dictation of that kind. Before I close, however, I should like to make it equally clear that despite what has happened this government will not lend itself to any discrimination against these men. What I said two weeks ago I repeat with equal force now. These men will be upon the same footing as others in similar groups of unemployed, either in British Columbia or in other provinces.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the minister will now permit a question, where would a single, destitute, unemployed non-resident in Vancouver secure a meal to-day?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, I should like to point out that when the original offer was made to the non-residents by Mr. Pearson, it was made clear to them tihat they would be provided not only with transportation to the point of origin but also with meals until they reached their destination. There was nothing to prevent these non-residents from accepting this offer of transportation. As a matter of
[Mr. Rogers.I
fact, according to our figures, the number of non-residents has been reduced from about 1,500 to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I ask whether or not any provision has been made for food and shelter for these men to-day and tonight?


Norman McLeod Rogers: On that point I understand that some special provision was made for them following what took place yesterday morning. I have no definite advice as to what has been done subsequently.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has no advice on that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have no advice at the present time. I would point out, however, that as in former years the dominion government makes a general grant in aid to the provinces for relief purposes. We do not restrict in any way the use that may be made of the grant in aid for the provision of relief; that has always been left entirely to the province concerned.


Mr. M. J. OOLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon my
mind goes back three years, to the time when into the city of Regina there came a group of young men, also from British Columbia. I remember how gentlemen now sitting on the opposite side of the house then took an attitude somewhat different from that taken by hon. gentlemen sitting on that side of the house this afternoon, and I listened with a great deal of interest to the defence of the government policy offered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers).
May I deal with just one or two things the Minister of Labour said. He told us that the men were employed during the winter months and that they had certain vouchers coming to them which should have enabled them to maintain themselves for a considerable time. That, at least, is the inference I took from his remarks. Apparently they worked for eight weeks, and there was a deferred payment of $4 a week. That would amount to a maximum of $32, with which not only to provide food and shelter but to buy clothing to maintain themselves until they could get a problematical job. I say, "a problematical job" because, as has been shown in the house this afternoon and on other occasions recently, in British Columbia men are being laid off instead of taken on, and the situation in that regard becomes more serious every day.

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
We also have the question of whether these men are from within or without that province, and we are told that a survey by the youth council showed that seventy-five per cent of these men were residents of British Columbia. At this point may I just interject a question as to why the minister has relied upon a survey made by the youth council when there was an officer of his department in Vancouver and when, if my recollection is correct, it was suggested some days ago from this corner of the house that this officer or other officers of the department should make an official survey of unemployed young men in Vancouver. Why should we have quoted to us figures that are unofficial when we might have had before us this afternoon an official statement?
We are told that it is not an innovation to close the winter camps, because they were closed last year and the men were sent out to look for jobs themselves. That is quite true, but the condition last year was entirely different from the condition that exists this year. Last year there was employment; this year men are being laid off, and unemployment in British Columbia is increasing. That explains the difference in conditions, and why the men found it necessary to bring their case as forcibly as possible, without doing violence, before the government and the people of Canada generally. We are told that the men were asked to vacate the premises and refused to do so. We have not been told that they were offered any real alternative. They were not offered food; they were not offered shelter elsewhere. I would not at any time encourage a trespass; but after all if a trespass is going to 'be committed, I would say that the place to trespass would be upon public property rather than the property of private citizens and individuals. These buildings were public institutions, and therefore to that extent the men showed a considerable amount of judgment in occupying what was public property. We are told they were evicted by the city police, in cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That point has been emphasized this afternoon. I wonder if it is not a similar situation to that which existed in Regina in 1935 when, more or less unwillingly, the city police were compelled to take the first step in the regrettable riot which occurred on the market square. If my information is correct, the mounted police officers were in reality directing the operation, and the city chief of police was more or less acting under instruction from the federal authorities. If that be so, I think we should know about it.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member is absolutely misinformed.
51952-256J


Thomas Miller Bell: I am glad to know I have been misinformed. But the defence by the city police of Regina in 1935 was exactly as I have stated it, and I wondered if the same condition might exist in Vancouver at the present time. The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) suggests to me that the mounted police cleared the post office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister said that.


Major James William Coldwell: The mounted police cleared the post office, and issued an ultimatum. I drew the inference I have indicated, one which I believe the minister will agree was perhaps justified, but I am glad to have his denial.


Ernest Lapointe: No; it was under the direction of the chief of the city police. The mounted police went into the post office at the request of and to help the city police.


Major James William Coldwell: Nevertheless, it was, I take it, as a result of the decision of the dominion government that the buildings were to be cleared.


Ernest Lapointe: I have read the telegram which was addressed to the mayor of Vancouver.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By the acting Postmaster General.


Major James William Coldwell: We are told that had the men complied there would have been no riot, no injury and no destruction of property. But would there have been any shelter? Would there have been any food? Would any work have been provided by the government for these men? I think these are important questions.
We are told that they could have done what other young men in other parts of Canada are doing. When I came back from Saskatchewan the other day I travelled over the Canadian National road. It is probable that other hon. members who were in Saskatchewan may have travelled over the same route, and if they did they would have noticed little jungles at stations all along the way where little groups of men were congregated trying to cook their food over improvised fires. Is that the sort of thing to which the government would sentence our young men, day in and day out, week in and week out?
I say the time has come when we must view the situation as something more than a passing phase. As the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) said this afternoon, the technological improvements made in industry in the last few years have created
4042	COMMONS
Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
an entirely ne,w situation, one which must be grappled with. It seems to me that in allowing the condition to drift, the government is simply inviting trouble for itself and for the entire dominion. Any one who knows me must know that I have no use for violence. Whenever I have had the opportunity I have endeavoured to advise means of protest which were other than provocative of violence. One. of the members of the group to which I belong was responsible, so I am informed, for preventing a far more serious situation from developing at Vancouver yesterday. That has been our point of view. Consequently, when we bring these matters to the attention of the house we do so in the interests of peace, order and good government.
We have heard about a difference in the attitude of men from Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. I do not know anything about those men, but I do know that conditions in New Brunswick are none too good. There has been no relief for a considerable time. However, if the people in New Brunswick are prepared to accept conditions such as no respectable Canadian ought to accept, then of course that is the business of the people of New Brunswick. And if the people in other parts of Canada-


Mr. MICHAUD:: Charlottetown is in Prince Edward Island.


Major James William Coldwell: I was referring to both maritime provinces. If people in other parts of Canada are not prepared to accept such conditions, then I say it is their right and privilege to protest. There might be difference of opinion as to the methods of protest that should be adopted. But when men are desperate, when they are hungry or when they are homeless they will do things they would not otherwise do.
The minister told us that the men from Charlottetown went about their business. What business? The only thing I could think of when he used that term was that they went about the business of starving to death.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: And not bothering the minister.


Major James William Coldwell: And, as the hon. member for Grey-Bruce .points out, not bothering the minister or the government.
Surely the time has come when something must be done for men of this kind who are to be found all across Canada. As has been said many times this afternoon, the problem is not solved simply by shelving this debate. It is with us to-day, as it was with us yesterday. It will be with us to-morrow, and it will
(Mr. Coldwoll.l
increase as days go by. A short time ago the statement was made that hon. members in this corner of the house were responsible for the disaffection in 1935. I know, of course, that is not a statement of fact. Actually the reverse is the case, and we are anxious to cooperate with the government in any and every way, and in every possible manner in order to bring about conditions whereby these disturbances will not occur periodically throughout the dominion.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we of the group with which I am associated were asked what alternatives we had to offer. For three years now we, in common with other members of the house, have been bringing to the attention of parliament this grave problem of unemployment. Always we have tried to make constructive proposals, and now towards the end of the third session of this parliament all that the government seems to have done is to have achieved a near approach to a balanced budget, and tear gas bombs for the unemployed at Vancouver. May I say that in my opinion along that path lies revolution, and that is not the alternative which we suggest. Our alternative is to recognize that within the present economic system with its technological dislocation, and so on, there is no cure; but that pending the changes which must come, work and wages must be provided by governments for our unemployed, and more particularly perhaps for our young people. The national employment commission warned the government, and its chairman, Mr. Purvis, stated, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of January 12, 1937:
Sometimes it is assumed that the good times for which we look so hopefully will automatically take care of all dangers inherent in the relief and unemployment situations. The commission does not believe this to be the case.
Nor, may I add, will one good crop or two good crops in the west cure the disease. It is time we realized it is a disease, and a disease of the present economic system. Unless we take steps to cure it, it is, I believe, the cancer that will destroy the system and perhaps even civilization itself. Obviously only employment will cure unemployment, and I submit, everywhere in this country there is work to be done.
This afternoon I spoke of my recent trip to Saskatchewan and what I saw upon my return over the Canadian National railway.

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
I went west over the Canadian Pacific railway, and I could not help noticing, as we passed through western Ontario and along the shores of the great lakes, the miles and miles of half-completed trans-Canada highway. The completion of that highway alone would mean work, plenty of work, and wages too. If, Mr. Speaker, you had travelled, as I did, over the Saskatchewan roads, you would have realized that there was a great deal of work to be done in that province, as well as in the other provinces. Quite recently, a few Sundays ago, I was on a train coming out of Montreal. We struck an automobile, and a priest and his driver were killed. I noted that during the same week the press of this city reported three fatal automobile accidents at level crossings quite near to the city of Montreal; yet I remember that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) before the election of 1935 spoke of the dangers of level crossings and the necessity of eliminating them, and incidentally he spoke of their elimination as one of the possibilities of finding employment for those persons then unemployed. I say, too, that in the elimination of level crossings there is work to be done, work that would provide wages for many unemployed. Reforestation, afforestation, drought control-


Walter Edward Foster: I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the motion now under discussion deals "with the serious situation existing in Vancouver as a result of the eviction of single unemployed men from the post office, and at once to stop disturbances." I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks as closely as possible to the subject.
' Mr. COLD WELL: May I draw the attention of Your Honour to the fact that in the debate before the supper recess we were asked what alternatives we had to suggest to relieve the unemployment situation among transients at Vancouver, and I am endeavouring to show that there are alternatives to tear gas bombs and so on, by pointing out that there is much work with wages to be done in the Dominion of Canada. But if your honour considers that I am out of order, I shall confine my remarks more specifically to the Vancouver situation.
In regard to the unemployed at Vancouver it should be said that in order that they may provide themselves with food, clothing and shelter they require money, and it has been said also that public works projects cannot be financed either in British Columbia or elsewhere because we cannot finance them. I would point this out, that there is a tremendous waste to-day in the investment of
money-exaggerated speculation, bad investments, uncontrolled investment, the putting of money into unproductive and speculative channels and so on. Thus I believe, if the government would parallel the recent announcement that it would nationalize the Bank of Canada in order to give greater control of currency and credit, with an announcement that it would establish a national investment board, money could be found to provide for many work and wages programs.
Retirement of the aged from industry, provision for minimum wages and shorter hours are other alternatives that might be suggested. But again I would ask of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers): What are these transients who have been treated in this manner in the city of Vancouver to do at the present, time? Where to-day can a single unemployed man or woman get a meal, a bed, or necessary clothing? What are the single unemployed residents of the city of Vancouver itself to do? These are questions to which the house is entitled to an answer at the present time, and I submit that we have had no answer, and that before this debate ends the government should give parliament the assurance that unemployment conditions at the coast and elsewhere will be met at once.
We were asked what alternatives we had. I have submitted some which we have brought to the attention of this house from time to time since we assembled in February, 1936; but, after all, it is not our function to suggest a program or a policy to the government, for the government now in power promised in 1935 to cure, or at least to alleviate, unemployment so that it would not be the great problem it is to-day. The government accepted office upon the conditions which the government itself laid down to the people of Canada. The government has the power to fulfil its promises; for no other government in Canadian history ever had the following which this government has in this House of Commons. We have told the house from time to time what we advise. That is all we can do.
Again I ask. What does the government propose to do? Out of office the present Prime Minister was loud in his expressions of horror at tne condition that then existed, a condition wkfjsMis closely paralleled by the conditio!? at Vancouver and in other parts of Canada to-day and only this afternoon the Prime Minister expressed satisfaction over an improvement in conditions. But for whom have conditions improved? Not for the thousands of young men who ride the rods all across Canada; not for the thousands of young men and young women who are leaving our schools and our colleges
4044	COMMONS
Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
every year without any prospects in life; not for the masses of the people because unemployment and insecurity haunt this whole land from coast to coast. Our young people, thousands of them, are idle. They cannot establish homes or lead decent, normal lives, and I submit that tear gas bombs are no answer to this question.
And so, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down I should like again to ask the Minister of Labour what he proposes to do in regard to these conditions. We have not heard; we have not been informed. All that we have been told is that these young men can do the same thing as other young people are doing throughout this dominion. Having in some degree at least answered the question which government spokesmen asked of this little group to-day, I ask the government: What is your alternative?


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: It is regrettable that there was so little of hope in the statement made this afternoon by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), and no indication whatever that the government is facing this situation. I do not know what will happen if the government continues its ostrich-like policy of burying its head in the sand whenever trouble of this kind looms on the horizon. The British Columbia government deserves, it seems to me, just as much censure as the dominion government. It too has failed utterly to face the problem. Today we find in the Ottawa papers this report from Victoria:
Honourable George Pearson, Minister of Labour, refused to meet a delegation of Vancouver unemployed who came here to-day.
That is no way to tackle the problem. One reason why the government here is falling down is that it is trying to settle the problem by remote control. Ottawa is three thousand miles away from Vancouver. It is true that this government has a representative in Vancouver, but his efforts appear to have been worthless. Some weeks ago I suggested that the Minister of Labour should go to Vancouver and personally take charge of the situation there before it became impossible, but no move was made. It is just like a colonel trying t^^fight his battalion without ever having a lOTfc at the front line. The place of the federal' Minister of Labour is at the present time in Vancouver, and the sooner he gets there the faster this problem will be solved. His absence is a continuation of the policy which apparently has been adopted by this government. I believe only one front-bench minister has been in British Columbia since the election three years ago.
IMr. Coldwell.]
That was the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). They have all been too busy.


Mr. REID:: And the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud).


Howard Charles Green: I said " front-bench minister." They have all been too busy or too indifferent to bother going to the coast province, whose problems are so different from those of the other provinces of Canada.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As a back-bench minister I might perhaps say that I was in British Columbia.


Howard Charles Green: If the front-bench ministers will not go, I suppose that the back-bench ministers will have to do.


Mr. HOWE:: I might say that I have been there four or five times in the last year.


Howard Charles Green: In the course of his remarks this afternoon the minister said that the cause of yesterday's trouble was that the men had refused to leave the building peaceably when requested to do so. But the trouble goes far deeper than that. The real cause of this trouble in Vancouver at the present time is the failure of the dominion government to face the problem of the single transient unemployed, which centres in Vancouver. Each spring and each fall these single unemployed, who have no home attachments drift out to Vancouver. It is the end of the two great railway lines. The weather is milder than it is in the east, not so cold in the winter and not so hot in the summer-fortunately. The government forestry camps in British Columbia are closed each spring. There is not the opportunity for the men from those camps to get work in the forest industries of our province, such as there is for men on the farms to carry on with farm work during the summer. The problem is in Vancouver, not in Charlottetown, and it has been in Vancouver year after year. This is no new thing. Plainly it is the responsibility of the dominion government, not of the citizens of Vancouver. In that city, according to another press dispatch, ten thousand people congregated this morning at the Canadian Pacific Railway docks to see this delegation of one hundred off to Victoria to interview the provincial minister of labour. You have no idea of the effect that has on the citizens of Vancouver and on the business of the city, of the effect that the fact of these hundreds of men being parked in the public buildings has had in lowering the morale of the whole of our citizenry. It has affected seriously the business of Vancouver; it has ruined the summer so far as that great city is concerned; tourist business has been very badly hurt; business in all other lines is

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
suffering. There is no reason why the citizens of Vancouver or any other city should have to pay the shot because of the failure of governments to tackle this problem of the single transient unemployed.
Time and again during the last two months we have pointed out to the government that there was going to be trouble and have advocated steps which could be taken to stop it. The only thing we have had from this government was the statement by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) this afternoon that the government is very sorry that this has happened. I believe that before they are through with their term of office they will be sorry for many more of their sins of omission, of which this is one of the worst. The question is, What can be done now? These men are still in Vancouver. There is no possibility whatever of their being placed in industry, no possibility of their getting work for themselves. But public works projects are being undertaken in British Columbia, and several million dollars are to be spent. Also training is to be given in forestry and in placer mining. I suggest to the minister that all these unemployed men who are eligible for employment on public works, or for the training, should be registered forthwith; a record should be got of the men who can be put on these projects, and an assurance should be given that they will be placed in the next few days. There is no reason why some step of that kind cannot be taken. It may be that there will have to be further public works; but I suggest that the solution of the problem lies along that line, and that there should be included among the men eligible for this work the transients who were in British Columbia camps all winter. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that if a man was in British Columbia before November 1 of last year he was eligible for the forest camps during the winter. Is that correct?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that men of that group should be given a chance to work in British Columbia this summer. Two years ago the government worked out a plan whereby thousands of young men found employment on the railway lines doing maintenance work. Why could not something of that kind be set up this year? The provinces are not responsible for these transients; they are the problem of the dominion, and sooner or later the dominion will have to evolve some scheme for dealing with them. For the transients as a whole, whom we have all seen riding the rods and living in these
jungles across Canada which have been referred to this afternoon, this government should provide some sort of training, in forestry, in mining, in agriculture or in fishing. The main point is that the single transient unemployed man is the problem of the dominion, and this problem must be faced without any further delay.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: It is, I know, difficult to approach the consideration of this subject without either giving it a partisan aspect or being accused of doing so. But before I make any criticism of the situation I wish to dissociate myself entirely from the language used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). He was thoroughly in his element along the line he pursued. He had not got into his stride before he brought in the textile industry, which is at least somewhat remote from the subject we are. discussing. A policy of attack, yes; a policy of tearing down, yes; but of building up we heard nothing. And that is not calculated to bring about what at least should be the ambition of all of us, namely, a peaceful settlement of this dreadful situation, which is a reproach to our city of Vancouver and to the province as well as to our dominion. As the hon. member who preceded me has said, it is highly calculated to do both the city and the province a great deal of harm in many ways.
Speaking on this subject some weeks ago, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) indicated that with the men working in the forestry conservation camps in the winter time and those taken care of by the farm placement plan there were some 5,000 men engaged in British Columbia, and that at the end of April or running on towards the middle of May they were more or less turned loose. As reported at page 3131 of Hansard he quoted the minister of labour of British Columbia as having said that, of that number, some 1,800 men were non-residents, outsiders, and that the province would undertake to take care of the remainder if they could get rid of the 1,800. Well, that was the initial error, or at any rate one of them. The minister was not informed of the situation when he made that statement, I am referring to the minister of labour of British Columbia. Apparently he is unaware of the change in conditions. A year ago his statement would have been true and the arrangement would have worked satisfactorily. But the conditions have changed, and changed materially. A good many of the logging camps have closed, and even the camps that have not closed are
4046	COMMONS
Vnemployment-Vancouver Situation
affected by the low demand for their products, the result being that they are working on short time with abbreviated crews.
In the town of Port Alice in my constituency and in the town of Woodfibre in the constituency of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), both paper mills, manufacturing either pulp or paper, have entirely shut down and are unable to state when they anticipate opening up again. These two little towns involve 700 men who are thrown out of employment. Multiply that by four and you have nearly three thousand men, women and children in the shadow of relief, and these are only two instances. In the city of Powell River, represented by the hon. member for Vancouver North, the mills are not entirely closed down but have very considerably curtailed their output, and that has had its bearing upon my own district. It is the custom for them every year to let contracts for small logging outfits in the northern portion of the district I represent. They allot them a certain quantity and that provides a summer's work. When Powell River runs half time they do not want these other logs because they have enough in their own storage ponds, and this means that another lot of men are thrown out of employment. Some of these men have their homes in my district; but many of them come from Vancouver, and that is why I have an interest in the matter. It is therefore not possible, as the minister of labour of British Columbia said, to employ 5,000 extra men. That is one conspicuous mistake.
Again, there was hope of sending the men to the prairies; but the governments there, both provincial and municipal, said emphatically that they did not want the men and would not take them. The men naturally asked what was the use of trying to go there seeing that they would only be turned loose and asked to move in some other direction. Speaking on May 23 on this subject, I suggested to the government that there was a major job waiting for these men to do, work which they could well perform, in the building of a road on the west coast of Vancouver at a place between Hesquiat and Estevan Point. It is essential that a road be built there to afford facilities to get supplies to the wireless station, lighthouse and direction finding station. We have been fooling along for a number of years spending two or three thousand dollars every year and getting nowhere, whereas if we spent 130,000 and built a good road using relief labour we would be giving the men employment and, more than that, we would save the annual maintenance, because the maintenance of a road so constructed would be slight. As it is, we are patching the 'Mr. Neill.]
road here and there, patching up work that we did years ago. The construction of such a road as I suggest would have been work which these men, trained in the bush, would have been well fitted to perform.
We have heard a good deal about the character of these men. The term " red " has been used, but I suggest that they cannot be dismissed with a single condemnation of that kind. I notice that whenever any strike is successful it has invariably the sympathy of the local people, and where the local people are not in sympathy it is always a failure. I think it can be fairly said, at any rate those who read the press and who know the conditions will agree, that the people of Vancouver are sympathetic to these men. So far as the word " red " is concerned, I had an experience forty years ago which I cannot forget. I, too, was like these men in that same city and I did not know where my next meal was coming from. I knew what it was to be hungry. There was not relief nor were there any government supplies. What I wanted to mention, however, in connection with that experience, is the fact which I noted then, that the morale of the men deteriorated very rapidly. We did not use the word " morale " then; we spoke of the character of the men, and undoubtedly it deteriorated. I saw it in myself and in my chums. We had to eat to live, and even though we were striving zealously to get jobs, and odd jobs were secured from time to time, we got to the stage where we were almost afraid of getting a job, and we did not want to work. The less intelligent men might have become hoboes or petty thieves, and the more intelligent ones might have gone into some form of confidence game. I was seriously contemplating going into a scheme for smuggling Chinamen into the United States-a profitable occupation, with $500 a head profit and five years in the penitentiary if we were caught. We did not know the word "red" in those days; but if there had been any leadership there of any kind, that said, " We will show you the way out of this trouble," I certainly would have turned in that direction and so would my friends.
It is suggested that these men resorted to the action they did in order to force attention to their condition. Yes; and half the trouble in consequence is a matter of face saving on the part of both dominion and provincial governments and perhaps to some extent also on the part of the leadership of the men. The Minister of Labour said that in the winter months there was a conspiracy of which he had information. I have no doubt he knew what he was talking about. If there was not

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
a conspiracy-that is going too far-there was at least a prearrangement that these men would be advised to get together in Vancouver when they were turned out of the camps, and so force the attention of the government to the situation with a view to getting the camps continued or to having work of some kind provided. And what was the conspiracy? One would expect to hear talk of Lenin's proposals and of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. But what, as a matter of fact, have these men asked for? So far as 1 can make out, all that they have demanded has been work. They said that they would be perfectly satisfied to get work, and they asked for the opening of a camp where they would work for a very small wage. It hardly looks, then, as if their sole motive were initiated by Moscow, when all they are asking for is the reopening of the labour camps.
And how was the situation handled? I do not think it was handled in the best way. The government positively encouraged, or any rate tacitly permitted it. In fact, more than that, they accepted it. They allowed food to go in and men to come out; they allowed for gangs to go out for baths, and arranged for baths. They went so far as to give them a sort of semi-valet service because they had their clothes fumigated. That is another mistake, because it constituted tacit approval.
I suggest that the proper way to do would have been to turn the men out at once; say to them, "You say you want to call attention to a grievance; well, you have called attention to it, and it will be investigated, on the good faith of the men who are sent to address you. But we will discuss no terms with revolutionists. Had a strong stand been taken, I think the men would have appreciated it. A committee could have been appointed, consisting of so many of these men, so many prominent citizens of Vancouver and so many government officials; let them sit down and discuss the subject. But apparently no attempt was made to come to an understanding. Let them agree on what I would call undeniable facts. For instance, the government said, "You can get lots of work on the prairies; go back there." But the men said, "We cannot get work there." The committee would then say, "There are two clear statements. We suggest it is up to the men to accept work that is offered them, and it is up to the government to state where they can find work"; not a mere statement that they will have their fare paid to Regina, whereupon the men will say, "What are we going to do when we get there?" and the government merely say, "Well, you will find out when you get there." Then, the
government having achieved the proper amount of face saving, a camp could have been opened. It will come to that anyway, and it does not make much difference in cost whether they are military or work camps. There would have been much less damage done either to the reputation of the government or to the shop windows of Vancouver than has taken place under the present system. The cost of opening that camp would have been small compared with the damage already done, and the situation is not eased one particle. I would tell these men, and tell them plainly, what was to be done; working men will stand to be told plain home truths; I have done it and received their approval.
Tell them that this is only a temporary arrangement. It seems to be at present largely a provincial issue, because if the Minister of Labour is correct, they are nearly all British Columbia residents now, although I think he is not quite right there; I think some of his figures did not take account of the fact that some men left and went back again. At any rate, if they are mostly our own residents, it is up to the provincial government, or the dominion government, to find work for them on the prairies or elsewhere. If there were a call for twenty teamsters, I would have twenty volunteers called up, and if twenty were not forthcoming I could conscript twenty whose occupations had been put down as such, and take them off relief. The bulk of the men would approve of that; they would not stand for shirkers, because their own interests are at stake. Or it could be done by provinces; say to Alberta: "We have fifty of your idle men. Will you provide for them and we will ship them to you, or will you pay for their work here?" I think one of the provinces did make such a suggestion, that they -would be willing to pay for maintenance in a camp in British Columbia. If the logging business or the paper industry picks up, as we all hope it will, there will be more employment along those lines, and it is wonderful how a slight increase in business will make the difference between too many men and too few. This may be called a mere dream of mine, but I think it is a practical and immediate solution; much more practical than talking about economic determinism, which is something I have never been able to understand and which I do not think is of any help in the present situation.
I have listened to the hon. members from Vancouver and vicinity talking about this matter at intervals for weeks now; they all spoke moderately and appropriately, and what did they get? They got just nowhere; they got language, beautiful language, and noth-
4048	COMMONS
Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
ing but language. I suppose I shall be called a rebel in saying this; but I am afraid if I had been one of that group or had a following on that side of the house, I should have been sorely tempted to follow the action of that great Liberal, I think it was Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1896, who said: "Not one more estimate shall pass until so-and-so happens." And on that occasion the matter in question was much less important than that before us to-night. If any considerable group on this side had said, "We will not pass another item in the estimates until this matter is settled," it would have been better for everyone. But surely such an attitude should not be necessary in these modern and supposedly enlightened days. The traditional policy of the Liberal party surely is still their policy- freedom of speech and protection and uplift of the masses. This is a great opportunity to carry out those principles. All that stands in the way is a little question of dignity; we have said this and we will not back down or give way one iota until they get out. Yes, we admit they were wrong; I think the men themselves will admit they were ten times wrong in the action they took. But there is a lurking suspicion that if they had not done something wrong, they would not have got any attention.
Let us put this matter above party political advantage. We are always appointing special committees. Let us suppose a committee of this house were appointed to-morrow, so many from the government side, so many from the Conservative party. I would put all the Vancouver members on it, but I would leave the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) off because he would make trouble in the Garden of Eden. But the various members from Vancouver who represent different parties and 'have shown a reasonable spirit should be on it; let that body get together, and I think they could speedily draw up a program which would bring this bitter matter to an end and do credit to every member and every party in this house.


Mr. A. G. SLAGHT (Parry Sound):: The hon. member who last addressed us (Mr. Neill) very properly commented upon the immoderate language to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) saw fit to treat the house in his presentation of his motion to-day. What is this all about? The hon. member to whom I last referred said that these men were not guilty of any crime. His next sentence was that the only crime they were guilty of is trespass. He has endeavoured throughout to make heroes of these unfortunate men who

through misguided leadership decided, as he puts it, to make a spectacular showing by breaking their country's laws. Do not let us forget that. Do not let us set up any false heroism; do not let us forget that these men have been guilty of taking over the property of His Majesty the King; and while I do not know enough about them to style them communists, I do know enough about the principles of communism to know that two things to which Stalin and communism are definitely opposed are constituted law and order. This is shown in taking forcible possession of public property and in denying art any place in society.
That leadership caused these men by mob rule to take forcible possession of the king's property, a post office, which has special significance under British law. It is a place where his majesty's mails are housed, where important communications pass back and forth. It is a place where the British flag flies at the masthead. The ill advisers of these unfortunate men led them to take forcible possession of his majesty's post office where the British flag ought to fly. It is all very well to say, "We must give them credit for their moderation in not beginning to break the windows in the post office." But the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows very well that the basic principle behind the policy these men adopted was mob rule and crowd psychology. In other words, they ganged up in order to take possession of one of his majesty's public buildings. What would the hon. gentleman think if a dozen or twenty men came along and said, "We are coming in here to sit down, to eat and sleep and perfume your place as we please." Suppose they came into his home or his garage or his stable, if he has one; what would he think of that, to bring it close to home in that way?
We know that in the country to the south we were treated to practically a year of sit-down strikes, and we know the battle the republic had to deal with them. We know what happened when they endeavoured to invade the province of Ontario, and these advisers of the unfortunate men in Vancouver are nothing more or less than sit-down strikers. The policy of the sit-down strikers is, "By our numbers we will change right into might. You dare not come near us." That was the defiance which was thrown out to Canada in Vancouver. The hon. gentleman, whose language I think I am not unfair in styling as incendiary and immoderate, called some of these men rascals, or said he expected some of them in the post office crowd were rascals.

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
To my mind the worst rascals in connection with this unfortunate situation were not in the post office out there at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: My young and hon. friend steps to the centre, though I am not looking at him particularly. We cannot serve Canada by dealing with this situation, if I may say so, as some of my hon. friends have done. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), with his usual moderation, decried the lawbreaking and the fact that these men had entered upon a policy of might makes right by forcibly taking possession of the king's building. Some other hon. members took the same stand, but will the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre contemplate this? In Halifax, Saint John, Montreal, Toronto, Parry Sound-my own district-Winnipeg, Edmonton and all through Canada there are young, unemployed men who are just as worthy citizens as these gentlemen in Vancouver. There are veterans throughout this country who have carried and are carrying to-day greater burdens than those of these young men in whose behalf my hon. friend is so loud of voice. Are we to say to these men across Canada, " Gang up." Get some leaders who will advise you to take possession of the king's property." Are we to set an example, by mock sympathy for these men in their lawbreaking, which will invite the unemployed men throughout Canada to take possession of the post offices from coast to coast? That is what the philosophy of the hon. gentleman amounts to. Let him think well before he repeats that type of philosophy to the Canadian people.
I venture to think, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has said-though I have not been in the house as long as the hon. member-that in this immoderate talk we heard to-day the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is perhaps running true to form. I believe the hon. member for Comox-Alberni used that expression. The people of Canada have gradually diminished the number that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has had the honour to lead until now he is here with but seven members, as I count them, out of two hundred and forty-five. Let me say to him that if he had been more constructive in his policy; if he had been less ready to tear down and, as I am informed- I shall be corrected by him if I am wrong- if before I came to this house he had not enunciated the principle that he did not desire to have the responsibility of leading a Povern-ment in Canada-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
object to that statement, which is utterly false. Further, I object to a personal attack on me and to your honour permitting such an attack when the matter under discussion concerns the situation in Vancouver. I would not object if I could be given a chance to reply.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement that he did not indicate that he preferred to remain a critic rather than form a government in this country. I was under the impression that I had read that statement, but I fully accept his denial. But let me say that his attitude has been along that line. It has been one of tearing down. It reminds me of the destruction of the post office building in Ottawa, where day by day the men on the top used their drills to dislodge great pieces of stone and then watched with gusto while they landed a hundred feet below and smashed into atoms. We shall never make a great Canada if we have an admiration for the tearing down principle. If the hon. gentleman had enunciated a single cure or remedy for what he so glibly condemned, I might respect his address.
Let me say to the hon. member that in this country we need other things than a cavilling and political condemnation of men who are dealing with a difficult situation. We have been condemned because we did not start soon enough. To that extent, and that extent only, I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens). It would have been better had our friends taken what might have been regarded as a sterner, crueler course and ejected these men within the first twenty-four hours after they broke the law, if only as an example to the rest of Canada. Then we suffer condemnation by the hon. member because these men were allowed to stay there; because they were given every opportunity to become lawful instead of lawless citizens and because for thirty days the government tolerated that sort of thing. For that reason we are castigated again. Oh, let him think what he is doing. Let him think of the many unemployed men in the other cities of Canada, even though unemployment has been greatly reduced under this government. Are we to take from the pockets of the taxpayers, from the poor men who are struggling along in this country working twice as hard as before, their few dollars, shovel them out to Vancouver and put them into the pockets of these men who are idle? I do say there ought to be more toleration; there ought to be less
4050	COMMONS
Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
political claptrap when an opportunity comes to play upon the sympathies and hearts of the people.


Angus MacInnis: Too bad you were not here between 1930 and 1935.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I was not fortunate enough to be here then, though my hon. friend was. That is a period upon which we look back in retrospect in different ways. But let me say that I do deplore speeches which attack a government which is doing the best it can with a difficult situation. On the one hand it is attacked for not moving fast enough; on the other it is attacked for not telling lawbreakers, mob rulers and men who have been guilty of taking over a building flying his majesty's flag, that they should be mushed over and sympathized with; while at the same time there was not a single constructive suggestion from the hon. gentleman who is so bitter, vitriolic and vituperative.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad indeed to have the privilege of following an hon. gentleman who has talked so much sense in regard to the offering of constructive suggestions. Once more, if it is your honour's will that I should be allowed to do so and still be considered in order, I want to speak very frankly, straightforwardly without criticism or cavil to the members of this house, to tell them that as far as I have been able to see, with my limited human intelligence, they will never solve the unemployment problem until they change the system under which we live. Hon. members will notice the attention we get when we offer a constructive suggestion.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: That is not a constructive suggestion.


John Horne Blackmore: You do not even wait for it to be shown to be constructive. The hon. member has just returned from doing the best he could to destroy the only constructive proposals we know in Canada.


Malcolm McLean: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he tell us what his friends said in Alberta-


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Malcolm McLean: -when the unemployed came to interview them?


Eric Joseph Poole: Who brought them down?


John Horne Blackmore: I just wished to try to show how much real sincerity there was in all those fine words. In the first place, there is no use in talking about the problem confronting us in Vancouver unless we have some suggestion to offer for the solution of that 
problem. It has been said that all the men want is to get work and wages. In all the devices which the intelligence of man has thus far contrived, is there to be found any set of principles through which, if applied in Canada, these men could be given work and wages? If there is, then let us devote our attention to a discussion of those principles.
I was much pleased with the suggestion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I am almost sure that the finest suggestion made thus far in the debate was made by that hon. member. I believe it was the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) who in his first speech this year suggested there must be enough intelligence and enough ideas in the house to solve our problems, if we all got together. This is the first time I have heard a re-echo of that fine suggestion.
The days through which we are passing present to Canada perhaps one of the first of the tragic effects of the break-down of the present system. I have quoted on former occasions some words which I believe will ring down through the generations, words of R. F. Irvine, Professor of Economics at Sydney university, Australia. For twenty-five years this man has been a professor of orthodox economics. Writing in 1933 in an article under the heading "Afterthoughts," he used the following words:
I believe the principles put forward by C. H. Douglas are not only sound but that they provide the only practical way of escape from the tragic fate which otherwise awaits the whole of western civilization.
If this man had been an ordinary farmer, an ordinary tradesman or an ordinary school teacher, his words might not have been very important. But he. is a professor of orthodox economics and for twenty-five years has been in one of the greatest universities in the British Empire. It was he who solemnly made those remarks. I believe they constitute a warning to this house. Out in Vancouver are manifestations of the tragic fate which otherwise awaits the whole of western civilization. That is the condition which will develop if we let that situation grow throughout the country, as I fear it will grow.
Much has been said about the other unemployed men who are quietly suffering. Either they are doing something about their lot, or they are simply suffering into the complete destruction of their bodies and souls. Let that condition continue, and we shall have a tragic fate all over this country; there is no doubt about that.
Before saying what I had intended to say, as my humble contribution to the debate,

Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
may I quote something which I believe will command the respect of hon. members of the Liberal party. I quote from page 103 of that fine book, Industry and Humanity, written in 1918 by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King):
Man, not nature, is now in control. The problem of the possible production of all but unlimited wealth is already solved. Growth in human intelligence has wrought this achievement. Surely human intelligence may be relied upon to see that the problem of distribution, to which the production of wealth is a necessary preliminary, will also find an equitable solution.
If mankind is really in control, why is he not rendering impossible such conditions as those which now exist in Vancouver? I now read these fine words from page 130:
Money and credit are sometimes spoken of as capital. They are such, not of themselves, however, but in virtue of what their possession commands; they indicate power of control because exchangeable for desirable commodities or services. So far as the actual processes of production go, money is a matter of figures in books, and insignia and figures on metal and paper.
The other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) told us that he was unable to accept new economics. Our contention ever since coming to this house has been that money is figures in books. The justification for money is goods and services in the country.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I would point out to the hon. member that we are discussing a motion having reference to the situation in Vancouver, which has arisen as a result of the eviction of men from the post office. I must ask the hon. member as far as possible to confine himself to the subject matter of the motion under discussion.


John Horne Blackmore: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I conceive we shall never solve a problem of this kind until we have money, and with that in mind I was discussing money. I believe the solution lies right there. For the benefit of the Minister of Finance I shall quote a passage by the Professor of Economics of the university of Chicago.


Walter Edward Foster: I .must point out to the hon. member that there will be other opportunities to discuss questions of finance. I suggest that at the present time the hon. member should confine his remarks to the question before the house, namely a motion with respect to the situation in Vancouver which has arisen as a result of the eviction of men from public buildings in that city.


John Horne Blackmore: May I ask if it is permissible to offer a solution? Is it in order to offer a solution to the present difficulty?

Several hon. members have been condemned for offering nothing constructive, and I am wondering how one can offer anything constructive without offering a solution. However, I shall yield to your ruling your honour, as I wish to keep my remarks entirely in order.
I do wish to offer something constructive, and I must say there is nothing constructive which can be offered, or which will in any way be a solution of the difficulty, which does not go to the root of the cause which produced the problem. The root of the difficulty is money, beyond any question. If it is contrary to the rules of the house for me to quote what I had intended to quote to-night,
I shall on another occasion read the extracts which, because of their bearing upon this problem, are of great importance. I would ask hon. members to notice the following observations with respect to the matter I wish to discuss:
It will at once make loans to private business and advance credit to the public improvements corporation for a program of public works designed to put virtually all of the unemployed to work. The primary purpose of the proposal is, indeed, to make available to society the necessary monetary purchasing power for the unemployed to work on much-needed projects such as housing, civic amenities, health, education, cultural activities, etc.
,My own restricted intelligence leads me to the conclusion that one could hardly discuss anything which has a more direct bearing upon this problem.


Malcolm McLean: Would my hon. friend guarantee that to be correct?


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member like to come across and read the book, or shall I send it over to him by a page?


Malcolm McLean: Would my hon. friend say that it is correct and that it has been tried elsewhere?


John Horne Blackmore: I assume the hon. member knows how to read. He can come across and see the book.
The evidence is, Mr. Speaker, that the members across the floor do not want a solution; they do not want anything constructive. Therefore I am going to close what I have to say simply by pointing out that by changing to a system which is known to man today, known by hundreds of thousands of men, they can remove this blight which is threatening to destroy this people, and only by the adoption of some such plan as I have suggested to the house can it be done.
I am going to recall two fine statements made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers).
1052	COMMONS
Unemployment-Vancouver Situation
Oae of them was this: "We will do what lies in our power." We suggest nothing but what lies in the government's power. There is control of Canada to-day by a government with a majority so great that it can do anything it chooses. If it cannot, then it would probably be quite in order for it to tell us why it cannot. If this country cannot govern itself, it is well that we should know it. If this parliament cannot govern this country, it is well that we should know it. If the present government with the majority it possesses cannot control this parliament, it is well that we should know it. If it can control this parliament, and this parliament can govern this country, and if this country can really govern itself, then it lies within the power of the government to-day to adopt the principles which I suggest. I contend they are the only solution.
The Minister of Labour also said this, as I remember it: "We will continue to do what we can to expand employment in British Columbia and elsewhere." Well, Mr. Speaker, all that the people of the Dominion of Canada request of the Minister of Labour and his colleagues is that they will do what they can. They need do no more.
I have no more to say. I shall not say anything unkind; I have not said anything unkind. All I shall do is to reiterate that the time has come for a show-down; the time has come for results, and the results will not be results of which this country can be anything but ashamed unless they give every man and every woman in this country at least a chance to make a living, a chance to get a job. Having said that, I just want to recall once more the words of R. F. Irvine. They are words to bear in mind. They are difficult words to laugh off.
I believe the principles put forward by C. H. Douglas are not only sound but that they provide the only practical way of escape from the tragic fate which otherwise awaits the whole of western civilization.
I commend to the Minister of Labour and to those who are charged with the responsibility of conducting this country through these trying years the application of the principles of Major C. II. Douglas.
Motion withdrawn.



SEEDS ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 158, to amend the Seeds Act, 1937.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.
[Mr. Blackmnre.1


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Speaker, this is
just a consequential bill based upon the reorganization that has taken place in the department. It is to change some of the names of the officials.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DAIRY INDUSTRY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 159, to amend the Dairy Industry Act.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Explain.


James Garfield Gardiner: The purpose of this bill is just the same as in the other case, the Seeds Act amendment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation paid bonuses and/or commissions to some of its executives during the past year?
2.	If so, to whom, on what dates, and in what amounts were such bonuses and/or commissions paid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The following information
has been supplied by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:
1.	Yes.
2.	November 1, 1937: R. T. Bowman, $150; E. W. Jackson, $150; Rupert Lucas. $150; E. A. Weir, $150; Lt.-Col. R. P. Landry, 8100; Miss H. Ball, $50; total, $750.
May 31, 1938: Lt.-Col. R. P. Landry, $250; J. A. Dupont, $250; total $500; grand total, $1,250.


BALLANTYNE AND LAPOINTE PIERS, VANCOUVER
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	Are the Ballantyne and Lapointe piers in Vancouver harbour operated by the national harbours board or by private interests?
2.	If the latter, by what persons or corporations are they being operated, and under what agreement or agreements?
3.	Was the equipment on these piers for stevedoring purposes sold or leased, and if so, to what persons or corporations, and upon what terms?
i.	If these piers are no longer operated by national harbours board, what change has been made in the personnel of employees on the piers by the private interests operating them?

Questions


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	By national harbours board.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Sold to Empire Stevedoring Co. Ltd., for $17,838 cash.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
NEW YORK world's FAIR


Mr. FONTAINE:: What will be the total cost of Canada's participation in the world's fair at New York, 1939?


Mr. EULER:: It is impossible at the present time to know what the ultimate cost will be. The main estimates for this year contain an item of $75,000 and an additional sum of $90,000 has been placed in the supplementary estimates.



MACRORIE, SASK., POST OFFICE MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What remuneration is paid for the carrying of mail in the village of Maerorie, Saskatchewan ?
2.	What rent is paid for the post office premises at Maerorie, Saskatchewan?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	$156 per annum for conveyance of mails between Maerorie post office and railway station.
2.	The rent paid by the postmaster for the post office premises is not known. The postmaster receives a rent allowance of $125 a year from the department.



ALCOVE, QTJE., RAILWAY CROSSINGS

Mr. LEDUC:: 1.	Did the board of railway commissioners order the elimination of two railway crossings at Alcove, Wright county, province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what was the cost of such work?
3.	Were tenders called with respect to the above work?
4.	If so, what were the names of the tenderers, and to whom was the contract awarded?
5.	What amount, if any, did the dominion government contribute in connection with this work?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The board of railway commissioners authorized the department of roads for the province of Quebec to construct a road diversion eliminating the existing crossing north of the village of Alcove.
2.	The cost of the work was $77,870.33.
3.	No information.
4.	No information.
5.	Order of the board No. 53403, dated September 3, 1936, provided a grant of $22,216 towards the cost of this diversion. The account has been submitted, but has not been paid as the crossing has not been closed, as provided in the board's order.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What changes, if any, have been made in rates since by-law "C" Top wharfage tariff was published by the national harbours board, giving the particulars of each change?
2.	Were such changes, if any, published in the Canada Gazette? If not, why were they not so published?
3.	Has the tariff of rates and charges of the national harbours board, effective April 14, 1938, been amended? If so, in what respect?
4.	Were such changes or amendments published in the Canada Gazette?


NATIONAL HABROURS BOARD-VANCOUVER GRAIN ELEVATORS
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	Are any of the grain elevators in Vancouver harbour owned by national harbours board under lease to private interests?
2.	If so, to what persons or corporations, and what are the terms and conditions of the respective leases?
3.	Has there been any reduction in rent or other concession made in respect of any elevator lease, and if so, what were such concessions, and to whom were they made?
4.	Has there been any increase in the rent charged for elevator No. 3 because of the construction thereon of a warehouse, and if so, what was the amount of such increase, and does such increase pay interest and sinking fund covering the cost of construction of such warehouse ?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Henry Herbert Stevens: For a statement showing the expenses of F. W. Riddell, executive secretary of the national harbours board committee on a trip to New York during the month of May, together with a statement setting forth the instructions given Mr. Riddell in connection with the business of his trip and the names of the firms and individuals with whom he discussed Canadian public business; and also a copy of his report to the Minister of Transport or a statement of the substance of the said verbal report.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the subject
matter of this motion is, of course, out of
Motions for Papers

order, in that among other things it asks for a supposed verbal report from one of my senior officials to myself to be brought down. However, I have no objection to the motion passing with the reservations that private documents will not be brought down, privileged documents will not be brought down, and documents that are not in the public interest to produce will not be produced.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a statement giving the dates of all long distance telephone calls between the Minister of Transport or any official attached to the said office and New7 York; and showing the number of calls and to whom directed; and also the total amounts paid in long distance telephone calls charges during the month of May, 1938.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The same reservations.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD-LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a statement giving the dates of all long distance telephone calls between the national harbours board or any official or member of the national harbours board and New York; and showing the number of calls and to whom directed; and the total amounts paid in long distance telephone calls charges during the month of May, 1938.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The same reservations.



BRITISH COLUMBIA UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

Angus MacInnis: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports and other documents passing between the Minister of Labour and any officer or employee of the Department of Labour of the Dominion of Canada and any person in the province of British Columbia, dated from April 15, 1938, to date, having reference to the unemployed situation in that province as it affects, the single unemployed presently occupying the Vancouver post office and the Vancouver art gallery.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am quite prepared to
accept the motion, subject to the usual reservations regarding communications between the minister and officers of the department.



QUEBEC GRAIN ELEVATOR CHARGES

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents passing between the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any official of his office, or the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce or any official of the Trade and Commerce department and the board of grain commissioners for Canada or any of its members or officials during the month of May, 1938, and having reference to amendments or changes in the tariff of charges at Quebec grain elevators.
rMr. Howe.]


William Daum Euler: May I say to my hon.
friend that there are no such documents as are called for under this motion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I fully expected it.


Walter Edward Foster: Dropped.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That on Wednesday the 22nd of June, 1938, and all subsequent Wednesdays until the end of the session, the sittings shall in every respect be under the same rules provided for other days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. E. LAWSON (York South):: In view of the lateness of the hour, would the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government consider a request that the order of the budget debate be not called at this time? I am not desirous of making two 'bites at a cherry. I would rather start to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the request of my hon. friend is wholly reasonable, and I am sure that the members of the house generally would not wish to see him embarrassed by being obliged to proceed at this hour after the discussion we have had all day. If it is agreeable, we might have the house go into committee of supply and take up some of the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not take legislation?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I can get my material in on housing. It will take a few minutes.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): The other day the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) asked me regarding reports of the tariff board. I should like to say that no reports have been received from the tariff board. In the event that they are received they will be duly tabled in parliament in accordance with the

Bank of Canada
provisions of the Tariff Board Act. In view of what I said in the budget respecting tariff changes, I think it will be understood why I did not press for the submission of tariff board reports.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution :
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Bank of Canada Act inter alia to provide for the redemption by the Bank of Canada of the 100,000 class "A" shares of the Bank of Canada of the par value of $50 each at the price of $59.20 per share and accrued dividends; to reduce the capital of the Bank of Canada from $10,100,000 to $5,000,000 divided into 100,000 shares of $50 each; and to authorize the Minister of Finance for the purposes of such redemption and reduction of capital to surrender to the Bank of Canada 102,000 class "B" shares of the Bank of Canada of the par value of $50 each, of which 2,000 shares shall be cancelled and 100,000 shares shall be exchanged for 100,000 new shares of $50 each to be issued by the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance and to pay to tlie Bank of Canada the additional amount necessary to pay the difference between the purchase price of the shares to be redeemed (excluding any amount paid by way of dividend) and their par value.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: I have not my material here on this resolution, but I am familiar and I think the house is familiar with the object of it. The object is to precede the introduction of a bill authorizing the government to acquire by way of purchase all of the outstanding privately owned shares of the Bank of Canada and to convert the bank thereby into a wholly government owned as well as government controlled institution. The reason the government advances for this step is that during the past year it has become quite evident that there is to be not merely political controversy with respect to monetary policy generally, which of course is permissible and desirable, but political controversy relating to the constitution of the Bank of Canada, which is the chief instrument through which this parliament exercises its control over monetary policy in the country. The government is of opinion, after watching developments during the past two years, that it is highly undesirable and very much against the national interest that there should be continued political controversy with respect to the constitution of the bank itself. It is 51952-257
for that reason that, in addition to maintaining the control which the government now has through a substantial majority on the board of directors, the government should acquire the whole of the ownership of the shares of the bank. This has been suggested on more than one occasion by members on all sides of the house, and the government hopes that it will dispose once and for all of political discussion relating to the constitution of the bank itself.
There is, of course, no intention nor any hope that it will dispose of political discussion regarding the use which shall be made from time to time of this instrument of national control of monetary policy. I should say in this regard, however, that it is not the intention of the government by the introduction of this measure to make the Bank of Canada merely a department of government. If the central bank of a country is to serve the high purpose for which it is created, it must be manned by men who not only are expert in monetary, economic and financial matters, but also have a sufficient independence of judgment to be able at all times to talk on equal terms to the government of the day with respect to the matters which come under the jurisdiction of the bank in the ordinary course of business. It is not the intention that by this resolution the Bank of Canada should become in any way a political arm of government. That, indeed, would be fatal to the successful operation of the control of monetary policy and credit in this country.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that is all I can say at the moment, not having before me my material with respect to the matter, as to the intention of the government from the standpoint of policy in introducing this change.
As the Prime Minister announced some weeks ago, the price to be paid for the shares is the average price at which sales have been effected of the shares of the bank from the first of January this year to the date when be made the announcement in this house as to the policy of the government. The bill itself will deal with the details of the transfer, and I think that is all that I need say at this stage in order to secure the introduction of the bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have been listening to what the minister has said, and I am in hearty sympathy with the purpose of the resolution, but I find it difficult to understand what has occurred in the last twelve months that has led this government to make this almost complete change in a policy which was adopted no doubt after careful deliberation. Can the minister give us further information on that point?



Bank oj Canada


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think I can go further than I have gone. It was quite evident to the government during the last two years that the constitution of the bank was becoming and would likely continue to be a matter of political controversy. Doubt has been and is being cast upon the control of the bank by the government through a majority of the board of directors. This doubt it is proposed to remove altogether by purchasing the privately owned stock entirely, so that the people of Canada may know beyond per-adventure that the whole of their national central bank is owned by the government of Canada. That is the object. I believe it to be distinctly to the national advantage that there should not be continual political discussion regarding the constitution of the bank, but that discussion should be confined to the manner in which parliament decides that control shall be exercised through the instrument which we have in the central bank. I cannot add to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I fancy that in the records of our parliament in recent years one would find it much more difficult to reconcile the speeches of the Minister of Finance in 1936 with this resolution than to find consistency on almost anything else with which we have had to deal. The only method by which we could make this a properly controlled bank was to have it controlled through the directorate, and the only means whereby that could be effected was to secure a larger number of directors than those originally suggested in the resolution. That was only a short time ago, and I venture to say that there has been less discussion publicly of the Bank of Canada in the last eighteen months than at any other time in its history. In the last twelve months there has been practically none at all. During 1935 there was a great deal of discussion on this subject initiated to a considerable extent by those now on the treasury benches, but in recent months there has been very little discussion about it. The public generally accepted the statement of the Minister of Finance that the method adopted, namely, of creating 85,100,000 worth of new stock and issuing it to the government was the most effective way to secure control.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend himself discussed it only this session on the address.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly did.


Charles Avery Dunning: The constitution of the bank.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. As regards the question of the constitution of the bank, I pointed

out that to increase the capital stock to
810,000,000 was wholly unnecessary, and this proves the soundness of that contention.


Charles Avery Dunning: The right hon. gentle^ man went further than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, for reasons that are quite apparent. But there was no statement of policy indicated by any member of the government until very recently, and to say that the discussions which took place in. the public press, which were limited in number, and otherwise, during this period, have brought about this result is certainly very strange and is not the cause which contributed to the change on the part of the administration. I can put it that way, at any rate.
There are those who favour the principles that have been enunciated so strongly by many members in this house, some of them supporting the government, and some opposed to it. There have been many expressions of opinion to the effect that this is the first step towards the accomplishment of the purpose they have in mind, and that it is only a matter of time now until the next step is taken. I do not think there is any doubt about that being the general view of many of those members, that the next step is that we shall have the issue of large sums of money, currency, supported adequately, of course, by the gold reserve on the basis of twenty-five per cent; because the gold reserve of the country would warrant a much larger issue of paper money than is now outstanding. The view is that it is proposed at a not distant date to utilize the machinery of the gold reserve for that purpose.
It was only a few short months ago that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) made statements of that kind and sought public support on that ground. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) very strongly urged that, and the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) put forward his views with singular clearness and vigour. These, of course, in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance met with a good deal of criticism. In fact, his characterization of the condition of mind of those who made any of these proposals brought, I observed, a blush to the face of the Minister of National Defence, his colleague, who sat behind him; for it was clear that to class that hon. gentleman in the category which was described by the Minister of Finance was a very cruel thing indeed, when one considers the value that was attached to the views of the Minister of National Defence in the days when those views were being put forward from place to place in this dominion.	[DOT]

Bank oj Canada
I cannot think that the explanation given is adequate, and while I would not for a moment doubt that some explanation had to be made, it is difficult to think that one of the astuteness of the Minister of Finance would put forward this measure in 1938 as an adequate reason for doing something which in 1936 he was urged to do but would not do. I am bound to say that I should like to reserve discussion until we see the bill-some sections of it at any rate-and in view of the fact that the minister has not his papers with him, I shall not now discuss in detail matters which would necessitate his reference to them. I have had inquiries made, however, with respect to prices, at least on the Toronto stock exchange. So far as I can find, the highest price ever paid for Bank of Canada shares for less than board lots was $60. The lowest price was $53.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not since the beginning of this year.
Mr. BENNETT': Since the beginning of this year I can find no trace of a board lot sale, which is ten shares, selling for $59.20. But doubtless the minister will be satisfied on that point. I did have a check made with respect to sales, because I thought the price was a little high. There was a sale of fifty shares at $59.50 on May 2 last. It is the only sale of a board lot that I can see this year for $5950.


Charles Avery Dunning: Sales are very few.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree that sales are very few, and sales in board lots of ten shares are fewer still. But there were sales of twenty-five shares, of 143 shares, and of forty-six shares on three several days in 1936. This year there was a sale of twenty in April, fifty in May, 113 on one day in June, and sales of twenty-three, sixteen, fifty, twenty-six, sixty-seven and eighty, and the prices at which they sold were all the way from $54 to $59.50. The odd lot prices were a little higher, because that meant less than ten share lots.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my right hon. friend will permit me to say that the instructions I gave for arriving at a price were to take all the actual sales both in Montreal and in Toronto and average the prices paid between January 1 and the date on which the Prime Minister made the announcement. That calculation was made. Of course I rely on my officers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; it is only a question of arithmetic.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of arithmetic and facts. I think they have secured all the information, and I shall have it here when the bill is presented.
51952-257i


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not going to discuss at greater length the inconsistencies that are apparent. I pointed out in 1935, before the bank was in operation, the reasons that induced me-I suppose most hon. members think improperly-to come to the conclusion that to establish the bank in the manner now provided would lend itself to such a claim for patronage that it would be impossible to make it function as I believed it should. And the idea was abandoned. Then the government added $5,100,000 worth of shares, which gave the government effective control. There will have to be amendments made to the act, it is clear; for the board of directors must vanish; there will no longer be any board because there will be no shareholders.


Charles Avery Dunning: There may be directors without shareholders.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There can be directors named by the government, but without interest in the bank. The Bank of England is'not that type of bank; any hon. member of this house can buy shares in the Bank of England. My recollection is they only pay an eight per cent dividend, and of course the yield is much less. But if there are directors hereafter of the Bank of Canada, they must be appointed merely by a political administration, not elected by the people. Obviously, should a government led by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) take office, without further difficulty he would be able at once to give expression to his views as to the conduct of the bank, whereas, as matters now stand, he would at least have to obtain the sanction of parliament to enable him to do so. With this legislation what I suggest would be possible; the minister shakes his head, but a few moments ago he said that this is the supreme credit determining factor in the life of this country. If that is so, then all that is necessary to do is to change the administration, have a government that desires to give effect to the views which have been so frequently expressed in this house, and you will have your Bank of Canada functioning as has been suggested.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend
said, without consulting parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without further consultation of parliament.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my right hon. friend will await the bill, he will see that what he suggests is not quite correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the minister said
in his opening speech that this is the organ of government-without being a department of government-that determines credit. If
Bank oj Canada

that is so as it stands to-day, and we now substitute directors named by order in council, an order in council can also behead and Send them to the wilderness. It then becomes a political bank, which is the one thing one did endeavour to prevent. I am bound to say I appreciate the point of this bank being publicly owned. There was nothing said this afternoon or at any other time which was not presented to us; some of my colleagues at that time held very strong opinions, the matter was canvassed from every angle to try to arrive at a reasonable and fair understanding of the whole problem. The experience of other countries with central banks, some privately owned, some half owned by the public, some with a majority owned by the nation and some wholly owned by the public, as, for example, the Bank of England, was examined. After mature consideration, having regard to the pressure which was everywhere apparent, the conclusion that I have indicated was arrived at.
I have no view one way or the other as far as the general principle is concerned. I approached the problem of the creation of a central bank as a bank in which the stock would be owned by the nation; I abandoned it for reasons which I found it difficult to agree to in my own mind but from which I saw no escape, and ultimately my colleagues and I all agreed that this was the only way to prevent it from becoming a political bank. The history of some European countries with a publicly owned institution has been most distressing. I would hesitate to think Shat history could ever be repeated in this 'Country. But stripped of everything, this ibank now becomes a political bank; the directors are named by the government of the day. From that standpoint it is purely political.


William Daum Euler: Is that not the case now? The government name the majority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They name the majority, as the minister has said, but it will be recalled that up to the present the public have had the power to elect some of the board.


William Daum Euler: Only a minority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Even though it be a
minority, that is the voice of the public. That was the argument presented, from which I found it difficult to get away. The power to *create is the power to destroy. The power to appoint is the power to dismiss. Under [DOT]different circumstances, with the hon. member for Lethbridge in control, you would have an order in council passed dismissing the directors .and substituting another board.
[Mr. Bennett.1


William Daum Euler: But he could do it now,
under the present constitution of the bank.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there are limitations that protect the situation to a great extent. There is a political power subject to the influence of the minority directors. Now there is to be no minority. I am merely presenting that point to the committee; I am not urging one way or the other, except to point out the effect it had on my mind. I am bound to say the effect is less powerful considering that the bank is already established. It was far more difficult when an endeavour was being made to establish the bank.


William Daum Euler: I think my right hon. friend in a speech from the throne rather intimated that he had changed his mind with regard to the matters that moved him not to have a publicly owned bank in the first place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; what I said was that I had been in favour of a publicly owned bank and had given the reasons. My mind had been unable to follow that conviction. Then I pointed out the question of capital. It is there in the record to be read.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot find it. I understood my right hon. friend to say he had it in mind to change the situation when the bank was established.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not quite that.
What I endeavoured to say was that I was not wedded to the opposite idea. I said it in this chamber and said it publicly. I said it when the bill was introduced, and I gave the reasons why we took the steps we did. I say still that is exactly the state of mind I was in at the time, and those are the reasons why the steps that were taken were taken.
But the government having decided to do this, naturally a great deal depends on the bill itself. The minister has said, quite correctly, that if this is to become a department of government, the usefulness of the Bank of Canada is largely gone. On the other hand, if it is to be an arm of government, its value still remains. There is a very great difference between being an arm of government and merely a department of government, and the distinction between the two will determine the value of this institution. Frankly I was amazed when the statement was made by the Prime Minister; for I think it has been generally considered that the bank has functioned fairly well; there has been an acceptance of it by the public generally as being useful, and to no inconsiderable extent it has justified the expectations of its friends. In one matter

Bank oj Canada
it undoubtedly had a great advantage over most such institutions, because it assumed the entire responsibility for our note issue.
Having assumed responsibility for our note issue, it always had in its exchequer three per cent on the outstanding note liability when it was taken over, and that gave it a revenue which enabled it, of course, to have a profit at once. That is the position, and that liability with respect to the note issue, transferred from the country to the bank, was made the subject matter of considerable criticism, because after that it took over the gold reserve, and thus it was said that a private institution had control of the gold reserve. That was remedied two years ago, and if the Minister of Finance will read his speech of that time he will see that he endeavoured to make me, and I think other members of the house, believe that this was the best possible method to effect the best and highest possible purpose in the best possible world.


Charles Avery Dunning: I believed so then and I believe so still; but I believe it is much more important that the national bank should have general national acceptance than that my opinion should be sustained.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman believes it still, we have the amazing spectacle of his asking us to accept something which he himself thinks is second only to that which he did two years ago.


Ernest Lapointe: Is my right hon. friend reading his own speeches of yesteryear?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Frequently; and I rejoice in their consistency. What delights me most- and I must say the delight is very great-is to listen to hon. gentlemen opposite making the speeches which I made some years ago in answer to the speeches which they then made. It is always delightful to think they should do so, and I realize that the cumulative effect of experience, time and responsibility has brought about such admiration for those speeches, which used to be referred to in such terms of condemnation.
That is all I desire to say with respect to this matter at the moment, because I am going to deal with the question when the bill is before us. Obviously it must contain terms dealing with the question of the directorate and allied matters; for unless it does we shall have provision for the election of directors by shareholders that are no longer existent, because there is to be but one shareholder now, the Minister of Finance. I notice that the resolution does not deal with that; obviously there is no necessity for it, but it does not deal
with the consequential amendments that will be necessary. It provides for the redemption of the shares, but it does not provide for the amendment of the act. I read into the resolution, however, that necessarily the bill will provide for amendments, it being unnecessary in the resolution to deal with other than the financial side of it.


Charles Avery Dunning: With respect to my remark of a few moments ago I desire just to say that personally I hold the view that what was done here two years ago represents the best form of control of a national bank. I say that still. I am somewhat in the same position as my right hon. friend, who earlier this session said he found that he had to set up the bank in the way he did in order to prevent the evils of party patronage from entering into the constitution and staffing of the original organization. That is what I understood him to say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said patronage; I said it before the banking and commerce committee, when the bill was being considered.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. Earlier this session the right hon. gentleman went on to say-and if I misinterpret him I know he will correct me, since I have not the exact words before me-he had in mind changing that once the bank was established.	[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no; not quite that.


Charles Avery Dunning: What was said, of course, can be looked up; it was a lengthy debate, and as yet I have not found it. My point is this, however, that to my mind it is more important that the people of Canada should be agreed that they have a national bank; much more important that they should cease controversy regarding its constitution, than it is that my beliefs as to the best constitution of a bank should be sustained. The government is hoping by this legislation to quiet any discussion or any divergence of view regarding the constitution of the bank and to confine discussion to what shall be done with the instrument, and I entirely approve what the right hon. gentleman has said with regard to the bank being an arm of government but not a department of government. It is of the greatest importance that the men who are operating this arm of government should be in the highest degree independent in the exercise of their judgment in the job of work they have to do. The general broad policy of the bank of course must be in harmony with the desires of a majority of this parliament. If it is not, then the government of the day, with the aid of its majority, can come to parliament and propose and carry
Bank of Canada

through such changes in the legislation as, in the view of the majority, may be desirable at the time; and to that extent what my right hon. friend said with respect to a government led by the hon. member for Lethbridge of course would be true. One -would expect that if the people of Canada sent to this parliament a majority of members who believed in the theories of the hon. member for Lethbridge and his followers, that majority would so amend this legislation as to bring it into line with those theories. That is democracy.
The machinery which this bill proposes to set up does not make rapid transition easy, it is true, because in the bill we are providing that the directors are to be appointed for a period of, speaking from memory, three years; but there would be nothing to prevent a government possessing a majority in this parliament from coming to parliament and amending even that provision of the law. There is no doubt about it; by this action, and indeed by the action we took in 1936, we do take the very great responsibility of initiating, as an arm of government, a national institution for the control of credit and currency under aegis of this parliament. We did that in 1936, and this does not change the fact in the slightest degree. It does endeavour to quiet controversy as to whether or not that was effectively done in 1936. I am of opinion that it was. Personally I believe it was done in a better way than the method provided by this bill; but I do believe it is much more desirable that my fellow countrymen should be satisfied with the constitution of a national bank than it is that my particular ideas should prevail as to the manner in which national control should be made effective.
That is why, as clearly as I can express it, I am explaining the introduction of the resolution now before the committee. I have no apologies to make, because I believe that by the control of currency and credit through this arm of government we are assuming a responsibility in this parliament in connection with which we must build up a tradition of non-partisan administration. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition expressed his fears in regard to partisanship entering into appointments by a bank which was controlled by the government. Of course that danger exists, and it can be obviated only by high-minded men in the seat of government refusing to permit that to be done. For my part I say here in this house what I have said to scores of correspondents who have written me with respect to positions in the Bank of Canada: " I have nothing whatever to do [DOT] with appointments to the Bank of Canada.
tMr. Dunning.]
Under the law the management is responsible for such appointments. Communicate with the proper officials of the bank in the same manner that you would with respect to obtaining a position in any other business institution." There is nothing to compel a Minister of Finance to do that; but I am endeavouring, as I believe my right hon. friend was sincerely endeavouring, to follow that line in relation to the bank. The only hope we can have is that men will continue to follow it until such a tradition of non-interference in matters of that kind is built up that it will be difficult for anybody to break it, a tradition which in fact would enable a management of the bank properly to repudiate such interference, and successfully appeal to this parliament against it. That is all we can hope for along that line. I can only give the personal pledge that, so far as I am concerned, there will be absolutely no interference of that kind.


Mr. McGEER:: May I say as a member of that proud group classed as monetary reformers, that we welcome the concession made by the Minister of Finance to-night in conceding that in money matters even the Minister of Finance, the Bank of Canada and the government of the nation should bow to the will of the people. I am amused at the concern expressed by the leader of the opposition as to whether or not the establishment of complete public ownership is going to make the Bank of Canada an effective arm of government. That was an issue I thought was very clearly and definitely settled during the campaign of 1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not think this was going to make it an effective arm of government.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I understood the right hon. gentleman to say that he was afraid it might make it that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the hon. member's hearing is better than that.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I must confess that I did not hear the right hon. gentleman very well, although on several occasions I asked him to speak up. Certainly I have no desire to misquote him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that. I said I hoped the effect of the legislation would be to make the bank an arm of government, and I agreed with what the minister had said and hoped that it would not become a department of government.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: To guarantee that the bank would have no chance of becoming a department of government, in 1934 the present leader

Bank of Canada
of the opposition enacted the Bank of Canada Act which established the bank as a purely private institution, free from the control of the government. And the issue which came up during the discussion of the Bank of Canada measure made very clear the distinction between the Conservative and Liberal policies on that all-Canadian public matter.
For instance, at that time the Hon. J. L. Ralston was Liberal financial critic, and in dealing with that very point he said:
The control of credit and currency is the biggest and most important public utility in the activities of the nation. There are certain things which should be under public ownership or public control, and the first and most important of these is the institution, the Bank of Canada, which controls, which guides and which directs the whole economic life of the nation.
There was no question as to the stand of the Hon, Mr. Ralston on that occasion. It was in direct conflict with the policy of private ownership which the government of that day had established. The then leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister of to-day (Mr. Mackenzie King) supported that conclusion with these statements:
Once a nation parts with its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury once in control will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government, and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament is idle and futile.
These declarations by the Hon. Mr. Ralston .and the then right hon. the leader of the opposition were, first, that the control of currency and credit should be recognized as a public utility service, under the direct control of the government and, second, that it was a duty of the government, not a duty of private monopoly, to control the issue of currency and credit to be issued in terms of public need, not of private gain.
I am satisfied that this is a step towards the fulfilment of those promises, which were the promises upon which some of us won our elections, and which indicated that the policy of the Liberal party was that if returned to office it would establish our parliament as a Canadian democratic institution which would be superior to the private money system.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I am glad to hear the leader of the opposition say "Hear, hear."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that. It
was said by the Minister of Finance. He is .somewhat more Tory than I, so I think it is quite all1 right.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I am free to confess that for a little time that was so. And I never dreamed it would be my misfortune to sit in a Canadian House of Commons and see the leader of the opposition, a Conservative, more Liberal than some of the Liberals who were sitting on the treasury benches.


Charles Avery Dunning: You haven't yet.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: But this action on the part of the minister leads me to believe that he is beginning to see the light, and that democracy, if it is to rule, must be superior to the private money system.


Charles Avery Dunning: I always said so. The
hon. member could not quote a word of mine to the contrary effect said anywhere at any time.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: What I want to say to the Minister of Finance is this, that the other day when I heard him deal with monetary reform I was wondering if he had in mind some of the statements made by the present Prime Minister, the head of the Liberal party, in the house in 1933 and 1934.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was his colleague, the
Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie).


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Does he remember what
the Minister of National Defence had declared, as a financial reformer, in the Vancouver campaign during the election of 1935? The Minister of Finance was not in the house when that great debate took place. So far as I know, he was not in the heat of the campaign of 1935. Possibly monetary reform has not become an issue down in Prince Edward Island, the little province by the sea, which he represents in the house, and which is a long way away from the rigid, virile and active reformer group which first sent him to Ottawa.
I would say to the Minister of Finance that the great issue is this: Is the question of the control of the issue of currency and finance going to 'be advanced by this extensive use of Canadian moneys which are going to be used to purchase back at a profit a part of the concession which was made to the private money system by the Conservative government in 1934?
Later on, on the second reading of the bill I hope to expose the details of the concession as the most iniquitous concession passed, or approved by a Canadian parliament since confederation. I am quite aware of the declaration that the Bank of Canada has control over the issue of currency and credit, and1 I shall deal with that issue to-night. To make the matter clear, I wish to make the state-
Bank of Canada

ment, first, and then prove it, that under the present practice neither the government of Canada nor the Bank of Canada exercises a single bit of control over the volume or currency or credit that is placed in circulation by the country through the chartered banks, who are the only ones that can put currency and credit into circulation.
To deal with that subject, I want first to take some statements made to the house by the Minister of Finance, which are in accord with the public statements made by the governor of the Bank of Canada to the people of Canada. The address of March 8, delivered by the present Minister of Finance, is now in circulation as an address on monetary policy. At page 1 of that pamphlet his words are as follows:
Parliament has set up an institution, now controlled by the government, charged with the specific duty of regulating the volume of currency and credit in the best interests of the economic life of the nation.
That is a broad statement. It indicates that through the Bank of Canada we are serving the economic life of the nation by controlling and regulating the issue of currency.
Again on page 4 that declaration is amplified by this statement:
Recognizing that the regulation of the country's credit and currency was so vital a sovereign function that it could not be left in the control of a private institution, this government in 1936 amended the Bank of Canada Act to give the dominion government effective control over the hank by majority ownership of the capital stock and majority control of the board of directors.
Effective control over the Bank of Canada does not necessarily mean effective control over the chartered banks, which are responsible for the issue of currency and credit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not solely responsible for currency.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: No, but the thing that we issue to-day as a medium of exchange for both government and people is not Bank of Canada bills for out-of-pocket transactions, but as the leader of the opposition knows, bank deposits, controlled by cheques. That is what our banks are using to-day to purchase government interest-bearing bonds, and I want to deal with that a little later.
At the end of that statement the right hon. leader of the opposition is quoted as stating, "No wonder you laugh," and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) replied, "I cheer." I am quite satisfied of this, that there are many of us on this side of the house and elsewhere throughout the dominion who would gladly swell the chorus of cheers of the Minister of Justice if we believed, as he believes.
fMr. McGeer.]
that through the machinery presently existing, the Bank of Canada, we -were in control of the currency and credit of the nation. But I for one do not see any reason to cheer yet, even with the complete ownership of all the stock of the Bank of Canada, although I think that is a step in the right direction. I want to give my reasons for that, and I hope my remarks will not be taken in a sense other than that I wish to contribute to the fulfilment of the great promises which were made to the people of Canada by the Liberal party, upon which I believe they were elected, and through which I believe we can find a way to make a better, greater, bigger and happier Dominion of Canada.
In showing how the alleged public control of currency and credit is operated in the best interests of the economic life of the nation, the Minister of Finance gave this considered explanation:
The Bank of Canada exercises its control over the chartered banks by operating on the cash reserves of the banking system, either by conducting so-called open market operations or by altering its rediscount rate, or by both.
And then he added:
These are the major weapons which the central bank may use in carrying out its primary function of controlling the volume of credit and currency in use in the country.
Those are the two major weapons, and I propose to bring to the attention of the committee that neither one of those weapons is available as a medium of the exercise of one bit of power either by government or by the Bank of Canada.
During the course of his address the following interesting exchange took place between the Minister of Finance and the right hon. leader of the opposition:
Mr. Dunning: The second well known mechanism by which the central bank exercises control is the deliberate raising or lowering of its rediscount rate. High rates, of course, tend to contract business enterprise, and low rates tend towards expansion.
Mr. Bennett:	But there are no rediscounts
in Canada.
Mr. Dunning: The rediscount rate is in effect; I shall come to that in a moment.
But the Minister of Finance never did deal in that address with the issue which the leader of the opposition raised, namely, that although we have a rediscount rate there are no rediscounts in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was only one since we were established as a bank.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: The right hon. gentleman knows just as well as I do that the redis-

Bank oj Canada
count rate went out when England set up a managed currency system, and that was all abandoned.
We are told in this house that it is one of the major weapons through which we have fulfilled the promises that were made by our government in 1935, and upon which we were elected, to create a new condition for the circulation of currency and credit to serve the economic life of this nation. I wonder if the Prime Minister, the members of the government and the members of this house are aware that our chartered banks are not borrowers and do not borrow legal tender cash from the Bank of Canada. Consequently the rate of interest fixed by the bank, that is the rediscount rate, has no bearing on the credit policy of our Canadian chartered banks. The reason why our chartered banks do not borrow Bank of Canada bills is that the Bank of Canada by purchasing gold and other securities has supplied the chartered banks with more Bank of Canada bills free of any interest charge or other charge whatever than they need to hold as legal reserves to support the bank deposits they have on issue. As a matter of fact, under section 59, subsection 4 of our Bank Act, our chartered banks are now privileged to take a five dollar Bank of Canada bill and to exchange on the security of that five dollars, $100 of bank deposits written into the bank's books by a mere stroke of the pen, for either a one hundred dollar treasury bill or a one hundred dollar interest-bearing bond. That was the concession which was made to the chartered banks by the government of 1934, and they are not missing the opportunity; for to-day they hold $1,155,000,000 of such securities, an increase of $471,000,000 since that great concession was made when the Bank Act was amended to reduce gold reserves to twenty-five per cent and to reduce cash reserves to five per cent. To-day the chartered banks of Canada-


Charles Avery Dunning: Would my hon. friend
please distinguish between the chartered banks and the national bank?


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I say the chartered banks hold legal tender currency, which they own outright, for which they pay nothing, which they have secured freer than they used to secure the right to print their own currency, because the cost of printing them is now borne by the Bank of Canada, to a total, according to the May report of the Bank of Canada, of $247,000,000, $199,000,000 of which is on deposit with the bank and the balance is held in the bankers' tills. That is over and above the $102,000,000 which the
Bank of Canada has on issue and in circulation with the public. What does that mean? Without borrowing a single dollar from the Bank of Canada, the chartered banks can secure $2,800,000,000 of bank deposits, and with their surplus reserves, which are to-day idle and unemployed, they can increase those bank deposits to $4,800,000,000. How preposterous then to say that the bank rate policy, which includes a change in the rediscount rate, is one of the major weapons by which we control, through the Bank of Canada, the issue of currency and credit in this nation, when that part of the bank rate policy has no operation upon the existing deposits or upon the $2,000,000,000 of deposits which our chartered banks may use! I want to say this:
I cannot blame the Minister of Finance for that technical explanation, but I am satisfied that somebody in his department was responsible for it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend permit one question?


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the existing conditions, whether in this country or in the United States or in Great Britain, how does he propose to make any rediscount rate effective? The other weapon is the one which is and must be used under existing conditions, in all countries. I regret that I did not follow up the interruption on that occasion made by the leader of the opposition. I intended to say then just what I am saying now, that the conditions which create that tremendous volume of available credit in all three of these great countries have for the time being rendered any rediscount rate an ineffective weapon, and the other weapon is the one which is used by all three systems of central banking.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I should like to deal with that phase, because that is quite true, but the explanation is very superficial which comes in the form of .a question to me. I am not dealing with how this thing should be done; I am dealing with the statement made to the house that this was one of the major weapons by which it is being done now in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; I did not say that.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Well, of course I cannot afford a disagreement, but the speech on the address of the Minister of Finance is on record.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: And while I may be wrong, I am free to confess that was the honest interpretation which I took out of that statement. I understood it was made to the
Bank of Canada

house to indicate to all hon. members that there was effective control over the currency and credit issue at this time in the Dominion of Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: I believe there is.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Well then, it cannot be
through the bank rate. It must be, then, through the other major weapon, open market operations.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is it.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: The Minister of Finance
agrees to that proposition. Now I want to show the committee that the open market operation is even more innocuous and less a factor in the control over currency and credit issue than is the bank rate policy. Let me point out that the Bank of Canada has issued through the open market operation, that is in the open purchase of gold and other securities, a sufficient amount of Bank of Canada bills to give the chartered banks $103,000,000 outright, which they own outright in excess of the reserves required for the bank deposits they have on record. The Minister of Finance went on to deal with that. But before I proceed to deal with the open market operation, I want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that one of the results of the open market operation has been to give the chartered banks, free of charge, a sufficient amount of Bank of Canada cash to release them from the controlling influence of any change in the rediscount rate by the Bank of Canada. The result of this is that one of the major weapons which the Bank of Canada employs, according to the statement of the Minister of Finance, namely the change in the rediscount rate, to regulate the volume of currency and credit in use in the country, is destroyed by one branch of the open market operation, namely the purchasing of securities on the open market with Bank of Canada bills.
If the rediscount picture is out of the picture, let us deal with this open market operation. Let us for the purpose of practical illustration assume that the Bank of Canada went into the market and bought $10,000,000 worth of securities and that the $10,000,000 were put into circulation as we were told by the Minister of Finance, though unfortunately, no matter from whom the purchase is made, the money would find its way into the chartered banks' tills. What would the chartered banks do with that $10,000,000? Would they, as he suggests, increase their bank deposits by making new purchases and new loans to the value of $100,000,000? They would not do any such thing. They would (Mr. McGeer.]	[DOT]
do exactly what they are doing now; they would increase their reserves of $103,000,000 by $10,000,000, and the amount of currency and credit in circulation in the country would not be affected by a single dollar. Of course my hon. friend says, "Oh, but the banks would be very foolish to have $10,000,000 of Bank of Canada bills that they could use as reserves of bank deposits of ten times that amount, without using them." But what I want to point out to this committee is that they are already doing that very thing, according to the May report, with $103,000,000. To talk about controlling the issue of currency and credit, in the face of that fact, by either the rediscount rate or the purchase of securities, is to state something that the facts of the Bank of Canada report disclose is contrary to actual banking practice in the Dominion of Canada to-day.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, that is awful.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: My hon. friend shakes
his head. Well, I may be wrong.


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave figures.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: But what I am placing
before the committee is an argument based on facts, not on theories.


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave figures of the expansion.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Oh, yes, but that did not
have anything to do with expansion, surplus Bank of Canada reserves.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, yes, it did.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: What I say is this, that to-day the Bank of Canada has idle, unemployed and being hoarded on deposit with the Bank of Canada, $103,000,000. Yet we are told that another issue of $10,000,000 will affect the volume of currency and credit not available for loans but in circulation serving the economic life of the nation. It cannot serve it while it is being hoarded by our chartered banks.


Charles Avery Dunning: They get no interest, you know.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: They do not even pay for the printing of the bills. Yet my hon. friend says that they do not pay any interest. I have been a little suspicious that we as a Liberal party and as a nation have been suffering from the very monetary policy which the people of Canada overwhelmingly repudiated in 1935. The rediscount rate is out; the open market operation by buying is out; let us see what would happen if-did the minister speak?


Mr. ILSLEY:: The hon. gentleman has certainly disposed of it. He says it is out.

Bank of Canada


Gerald Grattan McGeer: I never hope to convince the Minister of National Revenue, but I am .submitting that the facts I have offered to the committee should, to one of ordinary intelligence, indicate that they are valid. It may be that this is not the idea of the Minister of National Revenue, and he has just as much right to his opinions as I have to mine. But I want to say to him, with due deference to his present position of authority, that I have given this problem a great many more hours of thought and study than he has given it.	,
Let me now deal with the other factor. We are told that if the Bank of Canada went on the market to sell securities-what would happen? The assumption is that the Bank of Canada, by selling securities, would have payments for them in its own legal tender cash, namely Bank of Canada bills. Therefore there would be withdrawn from circulation, first, the Bank of Canada reserves that are in excess of reserves legally required to support existing deposits amounting to $103,000,000. But what would be the result if the Bank of Canada continued to sell securities after those reserves were exhausted? Then the Bank of Canada would have to take from the chartered banks the amounts required legally to sustain existing bank deposits. That would compel the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks to withdraw loans now in circulation. What would be the result of that? It would be *disastrously to precipitate the present recession into a major depression. If I am right [DOT]on the figures as I have interpreted them, which I have taken from the Bank of Canada report, this elaborate control that the Minister of Finance so clearly outlined to us means nothing under the rediscount rate, means nothing under the sale of securities, and only means that there is left to the Bank of Canada power to precipitate a disastrous and appalling, not recession, but depression of the worst kind.


Charles Avery Dunning: To control overexpansion, the power is there.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Well, I cannot agree with that, because I suggest that the facts do not support it. You could withdraw, of course; there is no doubt about that. One of the great lessons in monetary reform, which the Macmillan committee taught the British parliament and upon which the British parliament has acted, was that the rediscount rate, the bank rate policy, was only effective in precipitating a depression and not effective in restoring prosperity or maintaining stability. What has been abandoned in England since the British Empire currency policy of 1933 was adopted-and we adopted it in this house -the rediscount rate and the open market
policy, is recognized as being a minor, inferior and ineffective method of control; and direct control by the government is recognized as the only policy available. It is quite true that they have not taken over the Bank of England, quite true that they have not taken over the chartered banks. But I listened to the present Prime Minister of England and to the governor of the Bank of England, and I heard the governor of the Bank of England declare:
We are glad as bankers, and I speak for the Bank of England and for the bankers of England, for the measure of freedom which we enjoy in this country. We shall exercise that freedom in the only proper way that we can, and that is in support of the government; and if the government through the proper channels will make known to us its policies and what they wish us to do in augmenting those policies, we will in good will and loyalty comply with those requests, as though we were compelled so to do.
There is not a policy of legal domination; but I am satisfied that if the banks of England failed to cooperate with the government in the prosecution of its policies, nationalization would follow without delay, because I am sure that to-day in England neither the House of Commons nor-whatever may have been its constitution in the past-the House of Lords is controlled by the gold mongers and debt dealers of Lombard street. They have made the monetary system in England the servant of the British government and the British people, and the bankers in acquiescing are now finding that government directed policy and a new reconstructive program, with cooperation between the banks and the government, are infinitely better, even for the banks, than the more restricted policy of their own design.
The Macmillan report, if it is read correctly, was a major report looking to international trade recovery through international cooperation. But if international recovery and cooperation did not come, then it looked to government spending and government control, with a managed currency system. They said that it was not possible or indeed practical to regard our monetary system as an automatic system grinding out the right result by the operation of some well-worn rules of thumb. We were told by the Minister of Finance that the major weapons of the central bank to control the volume of credit and currency in the country are the rediscount rate and the open market operations. Well, the automatic system, whereby the chartered banks were supposed to create and issue, and circulate or withdraw bank deposit money according to changes in the volume of Bank of Canada bills issued, was abandoned. They found it would
Bank oj Canada

not work, and the automatic system gave way to what is now recognized-the Minister of Finance himself admitted it-as a managed paper standard in which the value of the currency is not maintained and stabilized by convertibility into gold but is maintained by management on a basis of supplying the demand which the progress of the nation asserts.


Charles Avery Dunning: Which is exactly what we are doing to-day.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Then why is this nation embarrassed for want of money in every department of government?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Yes, in the provincial governments and municipalities as well. Why have a confiscatory taxation system? Why can we not build highways to serve the tourist trade? Why can we not get on with the rehabilitation of the railways? "No money" is the cry everywhere.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend quotes England. Will he tell us what England is doing with respect to that matter? He quotes England one minute and then comes back to me.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Let me tell the Minister of Finance this. During the last five years England has spent $5,000,000,000 on battleships and guns, and in addition to that huge expenditure she carries her line of communication from the heart of the empire down through the Atlantic, past Gibraltar, through the Mediterranean into Palestine and Egypt and into almost every part of Europe, on through the Red sea and across India to her great base at Singapore and on to Australia and New Zealand.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not answering my question.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: She is carrying that load of responsibility and carrying it successfully. Well, then, let me ask the Minister of Finance this question: If England can invest $5,000,000,000 in battleships and guns which can never return a dollar of profit, why cannot we invest a few hundred millions to put unemployed Canadians to work building highways which will return the greatest profit in any department of trade that we can develop? The Minister of Finance says that I quote what England has done. Well, England pays the entire bill for unemployment relief. England pays the entire cost of health insurance and much of the health service.


An hon. MEMBER:: By taxation.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Not by taxation. She
balanced her budget this year by borrowing over $623,000,000. The situation in England is much different from ours. England must import food; she must import the means of shelter; she must import materials for industry; she must import materials for armaments; she must buy her gold abroad. In Canada we produce all these things, far in excess of our own needs, with an exportable surplus that gave us a favourable balance of trade of $627,000,000 according to the budget speech.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: How much was it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Balance of payments.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Well, I think that included tourist trade and physical trade and sale of gold, making up $627,000,000. But whether it was balance of payments or balance of trade does not make much difference; it was a gross international trade, gross revenue bigger than our total national expenditure. Yet England, facing an unfavourable trade balance, an unfavourable balance of payments-


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: The Minister of Finance
says, "Hear, hear," but we were told that that was one of the major weapons of control by which we regulate the volume of credit and currency in the country. As I have pointed out, that is the only power you have under your present system of control. I commend that section to hon. members to read for themselves; they ought to be able to read it as well as myself. The section goes on:
Moreover, those who are in charge of our monetary system will, naturally and excusably, be reluctant to carry through so ruthless a policy to its proper conclusion, with the result that we may continue for a long period in a depressed condition with severe losses and severe unemployment and yet with not enough of both to compel by fprce majeure the necessary readjustments of incomes.
Moreover, once such a condition of depression has become firmly established, a policy of dear money will no longer be necessary to ensure its continuance for it will contain within itself the seed of its own perpetuation.
What was the alternative suggestion as to the control that should be exercised? If hon. members will go through the report, they will find at page 136, section 316, this statement: The decline of new enterprise has reacted adversely on profit and prices, and the low level of profits and prices stands in the way of new enterprise.
It is for that reason that some of us think that in the domestic field it may be necessary to invoke governmental enterprise to break the vicious circle.
What is the governmental enterprise that has been invoked in England? Expenditure on
social services, a great program of aid to housing, a new program of swelling national defences, a vast program of aid in the rehabilitation of industry, and a thousand channels, even including cooperation with the governments of Canada and New Zealand to subsidize a Pacific ocean service; in all these ways, not by one or two things such as a housing program or a little contribution to municipalities, but in a hundred ways the government has taken control of the monetary system and is putting consumers' buying power into circulation not merely in the form of aid to those in need but as a means of sustaining the economic blood stream of industry and commerce of the capitalistic system that the government of England is charged to sustain, as we as a Liberal party are charged to sustain the industry and commerce of a capitalistic Canada. I say to the government and to hon. members that if we fail to fulfil that sovereign obligation of government, we shall have failed our country at a time when England, after years of experience, has shown the way.
I do not want to be critical. I quite appreciate that in a house consisting of 245 members no man can make any contribution who does not command some respect from his fellow members. I do not want to speak as a crank or one who thinks there is efficacy only in more spending of money. I have no faith whatever in the theories of the social credit party, because I am convinced' that the operation of that program would do infinitely more social harm than economic good. In 1934 the Liberal party in this house declared that the control, issue and circulation of the currency and credit of this nation were the most conspicuous and sacred responsibility of government, and that in the exercise of that control the government alone could demonstrate that parliament was sovereign. I believe this parliament is taking a great step forward in the economic history of this nation. The ownership of the Bank of Canada is only a step; the establishment of a policy that will fulfil the terms of that ownership is the next step; but there is no retreating from that step once it is taken. This is the first step in the emancipation of Canadian democracy from the slavery of orthodox finance, a system that has given us the experience of seeing every contribution of science to progress stalemated and set back by what? By a constant increase in our mountain of unpayable, interest-bearing debt.
No man in parliament, no government, no responsible authority should ever disdain the experiences of history. I am free to confess that in monetary history there are many
Bank of Canada

pages which indicate that the greatest caution must be exercised in the management of a currency to serve a nation. But we are not starting blindly when we follow the lead of England; and by now, after seven years of depression, with riots in our peaceful cities because men claim, whether rightly or wrongly, that they have a desire to go to work, we should know what we are doing. We have jobs in. Nova Scotia crying to be done. Why, the highways down in that province. Mr. Chairman, are not built for the cars we are driving to-day, capable of eighty miles an hour. They are built for the horse and buggy or the model T Ford. We have even worse roads in British Columbia. It does not matter where you go in this dominion; there is no national highway system, and that is one of the things in which you can invest successfully. No method of increasing the volume of international revenue offers greater opportunities than the development of a real highway system in the Dominion of Canada. I wonder if we are not amazed to see the premier of my own province going to Washington in connection with the construction of a highway through to Alaska. What will he get with which to build that highway? He will get printing-press dollars, printed by the United States government, that are not backed by any gold reserve; because neither bank deposits nor the printing press currency of the United States can now be converted into gold in that country.
It is all very well to go back to the old story "Why, that would be inflation." On the second reading of this bill I hope to place before the house the results of the inflation established as a possibility on the part of the chartered banks, but I do commend to the Prime Minister and his government serious and fair consideration of my statement to-night that the major weapons of control, by which we were told the government through the Bank of Canada would regulate the volume of currency and credit in the interests of the economic life of the nation, are not effective; because I am satisfied that the majority of the members of the government will not permit that statement to go unchallenged, if my conclusions, from the facts I have analysed to-night, are justified and correct.


John Charles Landeryou: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the splendid address delivered by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. He states that he has no faith in social credit, but I find it difficult to see any difference between the proposals he has given the committee and the principles enunciated by social credit. With him we ask the govern-
ment to fulfil their pre-election promises. We believe that the ownership of the Bank of Canada, though a step in the right direction, is not sufficient. We listened to the Minister of Finance tell us that the government had established complete control of the issue of money and credit, and we expected that the policy of the bank would be such that money and credit would be issued in terms of public need.
To give a simple illustration of what I mean by issuing credit in terms of public need, I say to the minister that we can and do. produce in Canada hundreds of thousands of gallons of milk, more milk than we can possibly consume in this country. On the other hand, throughout the land there are thousands of little children who, these hot summer days, want an ice-cream cone; but because they have not that little round disc that we call a nickel, that has very little actual money value as far as the metal in it is concerned, they cannot have that cone. All we ask is that the children of this country be allowed to have the nickels that are necessary to purchase the ice-cream that we can produce in such large quantities.
As another illustration, I might point to the number of people in this land and in the United States who own motor cars and who desire to visit different parts of this country. They would do so if our highways were greatly improved. There are thousands and thousands of men willing to work on the highways; there are great deposits from which we can manufacture the cement required, and there are plenty of gravel and sand pits available. There is no shortage of material; the only thing we lack is the money or credit with which to pay these men for their contribution towards the development of Canadian highways.
I could cite illustration after illustration to show that the needs of the people of Canada are not being satisfied; with regard to health and education; the needs of municipalities in connection with providing services to the people; the needs of the provincial governments in connection with social services, and so on. We believe that the government should advise the experts, who, the minister says, will staff the bank, so to regulate our monetary system that it will actually reflect our collective ability to produce goods and services in this country.
As reported at page 3903 of Hansard the Minister of Finance is reported to have said:
There are some, of course, who appear to believe that the government should not pay interest at all or, indeed-

Bank of Canada


Charles Avery Dunning: May I respectfully call the attention of the chair to the fact that the hon. member is now entering upon the budget debate. He is now quoting from my budget speech. Under the rules of the house that speech would come before the house in the budget debate, and I submit the hon. member cannot anticipate that debate on this discussion.


The CHAIRMAN:: In my opinion the point of order is well taken.


John Charles Landeryou: Then I shall not read it. I simply wished to refer to the statement of monetary policy, and the reference made by the minister to monetary reform in general.


Charles Avery Dunning: There will be plenty of opportunity in the debate on the budget.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as the point of order is concerned, there is no reason why he should not read it at this time.


John Charles Landeryou: The minister's remarks with respect to monetary reformers was to the effect that he was not going to issue money and credit debt free. He was not going to use the Bank of Canada, or any facilities he might have, to create money to be used to lower the debts of Canada.
Some time ago I asked the government if they had any plan which, if pursued, would pay off Canada's national debt in a period of twenty years, thirty years, or fifty years. The minister answered that it was a matter of government policy, and that he would not answer the question. But that question must be answered. It is a hoary fallacy to believe that we can borrow ourselves out of debt, or tax ourselves to prosperity. The municipal debts of this country are rising at a tremendous rate. Over 81,400,000,000 is owed by the municipalities. The provincial debt is increasing at an alarming rate, and has now reached a total of over $1,700,000,000; the national debt of Canada is over $3,000,000,000, and that amount has been added to in the last fiscal year. In the past we have financed through this debt creating system. The only prosperity we have ever enjoyed in Canada has been during a period when the greatest volume of private and public debt was amassed, and at a time when municipal, provincial and federal governments were spending large sums of money. Under that debt creating system we have a period of prosperity; but once that credit is restricted, and once we have reached the saturation point so far as borrowing is concerned, we have arrived at a critical situation.
To-day many municipalities are bankrupt, and many provincial governments are facing bankruptcy. The federal government claims to have complete control over the issue of money and credit, and I suggest that it provide municipal and provincial governments with debt free money, or at least make provision for lowering private and public debts. We are going to watch with a great deal of interest the policy pursued by the experts who will be staffing the Bank of Canada. Once more I will say that this is a step in the right direction, and we are pleased the government has seen fit to take over the complete ownership of the Bank of Canada. We now await the fulfilment of the promises made by the Liberal party. There might be a difference of opinion as to the methods to be adopted. The suggestions by the social credit group might not be accepted by the Liberal party; but there can be no difference of opinion on the fact that the purchasing power of the people must be raised if we are going to be able to raise the standard of living.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would the hon. member be good enough to permit me to introduce the bill to-night. I should like to do so, unless someone else wishes to speak. Hon. members will have ample opportunity to discuss the bill, and the hon. member's right to speak would be preserved until that occasion.


John Charles Landeryou: It is almost eleven o'clock. I shall defer any further remarks until the bill is introduced.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 160, to amend the Bank of Canada Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, June 21, 1938