[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn) presented the first report of the select standing committee on debates, as follows:
Friday, April 4, 1930.
The select standing committee appointed to supervise the official report of the debates of the House of Commons, beg leave to present the following as their first report:
Your committee have had under consideration the question of the status and remuneration of parliamentary reporters, and having heard the Clerk of the House and the Editor of Debates in support of the claim of the parliamentary reporters to recognition as professional or technical officers, which claim was endorsed by a. minute of the Board of Internal Economy, of date April 16, 1929, and also having heard their representations as to the difficulty of maintaining the existing establishment, filling vacancies, and ensuring efficiency under the present provision with respect to minimum and maximum salaries, recommend as follows:
That the following grades and salaries suggested in the report of the Royal Commission on	Technical	and	Professional Services be
made applicable to the parliamentary reporting and editing staffs:
Minimum
Assistant Parliamentary
Reporter, Grade III. $2,800 Chief Assistant Parliamentary Reporter,
Grade IY	 3,420
Parliamentary Reporter
Grade IY	 3,420
Associate Editor, Grade
V	 4,020
Editor, Grade	YI..	..	4,800
Maximum
[Stage Direction]
and that steps be taken by the Civil Service Commission to give effect to this recommendation.
Your committee also make the following recommendations:
(a)	That the organization and establishment of the house be amended by making provision for the addition to the staff of the Debates branch of one English and one French parliamentary reporter.
(b)	That representations be made to the Civil Service Commission pointing out the advisability of so amending their regulations that appointments of parliamentary reporters be made within a few days when applications therefor are forwarded during the sessions of parliament.
(c)	That the Editor of English Debates and the officer occupying the joint positions of the Editor of French Debates and Parliamentary Reporter be placed in the same class and paid the same remuneration, and
(d)	That the above recommendations be submitted to the Civil Service Commission.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
[Mr. F. MacDonald.1

Unemployment-Mr. MacDonald (C. Breton)

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 53, to amend the Winding-up Act.
Mr. BENNETT:: Explain.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: When the Winding-up
Act was placed in the statutes there were no shares of no par value. This is for the purpose of giving to the holders of a certain number of shares of no par value the right to petition for winding-up.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Yesterday I was questioned by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner) as to when he could expect a return. I promise him the return by the beginning of next week.



LIBERAL CANDIDATES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: May I inquire whether the Prime
Minister will endorse the candidature of Thomas Reid as Liberal nominee for New Westminster, in view of the fact that Reid stated at the nominating convention that he was in favour of greater protection for Canadian producers?


Mr. SPEAKER:: We will say, stand as an order for return.


William Garland McQuarrie: There is another question that I wish to ask the Prime Minister, and that is in regard to the Liberal candidate for Burrard.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: This is a sign of nervousness.


William Garland McQuarrie: He also criticized-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The time of the house is very precious just now.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for committee of suppfy, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Heaps.
Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I wish to correct a misapprehension which may have arisen from what I said yesterday with regard to the question of free trade. I intimated that I might be a free trader myself along certain lines, but that I wanted protection on coal and iron. The point I was trying to make was this, that if I were a free trader, I would likely be a free trader of the kind that we meet in this house, particularly on this side to my left, free traders who want free trade in the articles they buy, and protection on the produce that they have to sell.
I was trying to point out last night that the fiscal policy of this government is responsible to a certain degree, at least, for the unemployment now existing in this country. I was dealing with the question of coal. Since then I have read in the newspapers a statement made on the floor of the legislature of Nova Scotia to the effect that coal used in the heating of the public buildings at Halifax was imported from points outside of Canada, while miners within two hundred miles of Halifax are walking the streets idle. Surely there is a direct connection between the policy of this government and the unemployment that exists in the town of Glace Bay.
I also pointed out the effect which the introduction of Russian coal is going to have on the market that we want to get for Nova Scotia coal and possibly coal from the western provinces. Last year a large consignment of coal came from Russia into this country. It was refused admittance into the United States, but was admitted into Canada. The newspapers tell us that this year contracts have been let for the purchase of 250,000 tons of Russian coal. There is one thought that I want to leave with my friends from the west, the wheat farmers and free traders. The papers tell us that within the last year or so hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in the United States for agricultural implements for Russia. Who dare say that within four or five years from now the great agricultural lands of Russia will not be developed to such a degree that, if they can replace our coal now, they will not then be in a position to replace our Canadian wheat? What will be the position then of the wheat farmers in this country? Will they be free traders then?


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Sure.


Finlay MacDonald: The
hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) says
1270	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. MacDonald (C. Breton)
sure. He is a consistent free trader. He is, I believe, the father and mother of the consumers' league. He is the exponent of the free trade doctrine in this house. Yet he sat here the day before yesterday and listened to the most extreme protectionist doctrine that has ever been presented in this house. He heard the Minister of Labour (Mr. HeCnan) say that he had paid $2,000,000 for a ship in Canada when he could have bought the same ship in London for $1,000,000. Is the hon. member for Weyburn going to subscribe to any such doctrine as that? Where are all his free trade theories? Those free trade theories are, after all, theories only. When they come up against -the acid test of practical conditions, they vanish into thin air.
The newspapers to-day also bring us some surprising statements with regard to remarks made by certain provincial premiers in this country. I read that two or three of them have doubted that the Prime Minister made the statement in the house yesterday that he would not give five cents to a Tory government, but that he was prepared to go a certain length possibly in meeting one or two of the western provinces that have a Progressive premier at the head of their government. These three provincial premiers appeared to be surprised at such a statement by the Prime Minister. Why should they be surprised because the Prime Minister makes a frank and honest statement that we all know to be true? Certainly he would not give five cents to a Tory provincial government. Why? Because it is the policy of this government, and has been from the start, that every dollar of public money that is going to be spent is going to be spent for a political purpose. Give public money to a Tory government that will not expend it for Grit purposes? What nonsense. No, sir, this government is not going to do anything like that. There is where the vicious principle comes in, and I quite agree with the Prime Minister that is a vicious principle; but it is the outlook that has always characterized the Grit party in this country.
We have an illustration in my province, where the militia was called out to settle a strike. The cost amounted to $133,000. The militia was called out, my hon. friend says, by a Grit government. The federal government presented a bill to the province for that sum, and, what is more, made the province pay it, because they deducted it from the
IMr. F. MacDonald.l
subsidy. Just contrast that with what the Borden government did in an exactly similar case; they presented a bill to the provincial government for the cost of the militia, but subsequently withdrew it. The Borden government did not collect a dollar, although a Grit government was in power in Nova Scotia. I do not think we could find a better contrast between the respective attitudes of the two old parties. This government is running true to form. We have ministers making pledges in this house and out of it in an endeavour to catch votes, but when they are called upon to implement these pledges we find them blocked by the Prime Minister.
But out of this debate comes one clear declaration-this government is opposed to unemployment insurance. There is no beclouding that fact. That declaration is going out to the people of this country who are in need, and to whom unemployment insurance would be a blessing. Let me tell the government that there will come a time when our unemployed will have an opportunity to return to power representatives who will attend to their wants. To-day we see the government without any cabinet solidarity; ministers saying one thing, the Prime Minister saying another. On the other hand, the Conservative party is true to its principles, it is true to the national policy, a policy that has done more than anything else to build up this country. It is on that party, Mr. Speaker, and its policies, especially the policy of protection as developed by experience, protection not only for capital, but also for labour and for the consumer, that our people may rely to maintain the progress which Canada is destined to make in the coming years.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I trust the hon. gentleman (Mr. MacDonald) who has just taken his seat will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks very closely, but I hope to refer to them briefly before resuming my seat. The ground has been so well covered by a number of strong and excellent speeches that I would hesitate to take up the time of the house but for the fact that St. Boniface, embracing as it does the town of Transcona and the Canadian National shops with its many hundreds of workers, as well as the labouring suburb of Elmwood, is essentially a labouring constituency, and I believe that if ever I should raise my voice in this house now is the time when

Unemployment-Mr. Howden
we are considering the subject of unemployment, which is so disastrous to the welfare of the labouring classes.
It has been repeatedly stated, and I think it is pretty generally accepted, that unemployment is not an emergent condition, that we always have unemployment. In that statement I heartily concur. Of course, since our rigorous winter climate ties up many Industries, unemployment is always increased at that season; but all through the summer, fall and winter while I am at home, not a day passes, cerainly not a week, but that I am asked to find jobs for men out of work. They seem to think that a letter from me is all that is necessary to secure them a job-unfortunately a much mistaken idea. There are always scores of men looking for work at the Transcona shops, men who go back day after day and week after week until finally they give up in disgust and despair and look elsewhere for work, with, I fear, no better success. There is no doubt that unemployment is a permanent and constant condition of our social structure, a malady or disease pertaining thereto, for which a cure must be sought and found if possible.
I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of many that seasonal unemployment is caused by our rigorous climate. Undoubtedly the collapse of the stock market and the fact that our wheat crop for 1929, as well as a large portion of that for 1928, is not yet sold, have had a very decided bearing on unemployment, for it has prevented considerable building programs being proceeded with. Some unemployment is caused by lack of training or fitness of the worker for his work. In this regard I might state that the migration of many thousands of people yearly from the British Isles and from Europe to this country has always been a large factor in unemployment. A few nights ago the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead), pointed out that the major railway companies had for some years brought in immigrants from the old country, who had displaced men already in occupation at the various railway shops, and these in turn were later displaced by a fresh batch of immigrants. This complaint has been made to me in very bitter terms a number of times in connection with the Transcona shops. I have not verified the statement, but I have good reason to believe that it is true. If it is true, it is certainly a shame; it is a bad piece of business and it should be stopped
immediately. Here, at least, is one place where charity, if it may be so called, should begin at home. I fancy, however, the basic cause of unemployment goes much deeper than this. Canada produces roughly ten times the amount of wheat required for her consumption; she produces many times the amount of minerals and forest products that can be used in this country; she produces 300,000,000 pounds of fish each year; there are greater quantities of manufactured products and products of the dairy, such as meat and eggs than oan be consumed within the country. I fancy if the value of these products were estimated it would be found that Canada produces probably ten times the value of the amount required to provide comfort for her citizens. Still, the vast bulk of Canadians are not well off; there is no doubt about that. Unemployment is with us from year to year, and it is not infrequently that we find destitution amongst us. In these days, with our modern machinery and improved methods of production one man can do the work for which some years ago two or three men were required. That is to say that the employer or the head of a corporation buys for the wages of one man the work that was done in former years by several men.
For unto every one that hath, shall be given;
. . . . but from him that hath not, shall be taken away even that which he hath.
Fifty per cent less men can do more work than twice the number did a few years ago; in order to provide work for greater numbers the men are put on short time and small wages. The consequence is that they are frequently unable to procure the necessities of life, and an increasing number of men from year to year find themselves entirely out of work. This, to my mind, is the underlying cause of unemployment. Assuming that is correct, what is the cure? In medicine we say that the first principle in treatment is to eliminate the cause of the disease. Unfoi-tunately this is a disease in which we cannot so easily eliminate the cause. It is, however, within the power of this parliament to bring in measures which would include a more equitable distribution of the wealth of this land, and would go far to overcome this evil and to remedy the present state of unemployment.
What would be the cure for unemployment, as we have it to-day? We cannot change the climate of Canada, but we could see to it that workmen were paid a sufficient wage during the period of occupation to carry them

Unemployment-Mr. Howden
over a reasonable period of inactivity during the winter. Secondly, we could stop undesirable immigration, and allow in only such immigrants as are actually needed to carry on the industry of this land, and those immigrants who are able to look after themselves upon their arrival. The governments of Canada, both federal and provincial, have the power to tax the wealth of this country for the purpose of providing for the general welfare of the body politic and its greatest asset, namely, its citizens.
I would now turn for a few moments from the field of mere platitudes to the criticism which has been offered to the government by some hon. members opposite who have taken part in this debate. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) referred the other day to the policy of this government in connection with unemployment. Since the remarks of the hon. gentleman were made in the course of this debate, I presume I am at liberty to refer to them at this time. He stated that the policy of this government had annually driven out 100,000 men, for a number of years. I think that is a correct statement of his remarks. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) speaking in Regina this year is reported to have said these words:
It would surprise you to know that during the nine years the Liberals have been in power 859,000 Canadians have left this country to go to the United States. If in nine years the policy of the government has driven 859,000 Canadians to seek employment in the United States, twice as great a number as ever went in the same period before, what do you think of that policy?
As far as we can learn, these figures must have been taken from the United States immigration records. I might point out that this government took office in 1922, and can only he held responsible for the progress or otherwise of this country from the time it brought down its budget in March of that year. From that time until the period when these statistics were compiled was briefly seven years, rather than nine years. Those two years would cut a considerable number from the figure 859,000, and bring it down to about 740,000. So that with that treatment the figure is contracted. Further, 740,000 includes migration from Newfoundland, which is not a part of Canada, and would lower the figure by 2,000 men yearly. Taking this into consideration, the figure is now reduced to 726,000. That figure takes no account of people who have returned to Canada, or of Canadians who resided in the United States for only a short time and then returned to this side of the border. When these people are considered,

the figure is still further reduced by 153,000, which brings it down to 573,000.
So, Mr. Speaker, if we carry this inquiry a little further we find in the end that the actual number of men who left Canada during this seven year period, instead of being 859,000, is actually 352,000. I might put a few figures on Hansard. In 1925 there migrated to the United States from Canada 100,859 people, and 15,815 people came to Canada from the United States. Returning Canadians numbered 43,775, which made a net loss to Canada in that year of 41,302. I will not follow these figures down to the present except to give the result for each year. I have given the figures for 1925. In 1926 the net loss was 25,020; in 1927 it was 3,524; in 1928 it was 8,260, and in 1929 it dwindled to 82. So, in the five years from 1925 to 1929, the migration to the United States from Canada amounted to only 78,188, which is a considerable comedown from the figures quoted by my hon. friend. When the hon. member for Fort William stated that we were losing 100,000 men a year to the United States, he remarked that this was a good way to cure unemployment but that he preferred the disease to the cure.
The fiscal policy of this country has been pretty thoroughly attacked as a cause of unemployment in Canada. Obviously the contention is, sir, that if the government would build a tariff wall around Canada so high that no foreign products could enter and the industries of this country had the entire home market, they would be able to develop to such an extent that they would employ sufficient men to do away with unemployment. It has been pointed out by hon. members in the course of this debate that the cause of unemployment in this country is the fact that machinery largely has supplanted man power in industry. As we find it to-day, there is not enough work for the men who were formerly employed; if these men are kept at work at all they are working only part time. Then of what benefit would it be to them to increase materially the industries of this country? These men would continue to be supplanted by machinery and still would be working on short time, and there would be an ever-increasing number of men out of work. Not only would that be the case, but these men working on short time would have to pay higher prices for the necessities of life owing to the increased cost of production which would be brought about by such a tariff wall.
There is another reason, I think, which applies here. Canada is an exporting country; she exports hundreds of millions of bushels of

Unemployment-Mr. Ilowden
wheat; she exports millions of dollars' worth of pulp, and many kinds of manufactured products. We send out millions of dollars' worth of minerals, lumber and other things, and if we build a high tariff wall around Canada in order to keep out foreign products, just how are we going to export our own products? We cannot expect to sell our products, be they what they may, to other countries without buying from those countries, and if Canada adopts a closed door policy what then are we to do with Canadian industry? I am not much of an economist, Mr. Speaker, but to me the very idea of this argument seems absurd and entirely out of the question.
An hon. member opposite pointed to the lack of a national coal policy as causing a great deal of unemployment in this country. A few years ago I had the good fortune to be on a committee of the house which investigated this matter. My memory is not very accurate, but I do remember that at that time the matter was thoroughly gone into. During the war, when the United States was threatened with a shortage of coal, it became necessary for Canada to develop rapidly her coal resources, and so probably for the first time that portion1 of eastern Canada east of western Ontario became acquainted with western coal. That coal made a very good impression; the people of central Canada signified that if this coal could reach the centre of the Dominion at a price which made it possible for them to use it, they would be very glad to do so. Unfortunately, in the long run this was found to be impossible. I believe that coal is worth $4 a ton on cars at the mine door, while the actual cost of moving it to central Canada is $9 a ton. This is a bituminous coal, and the people of central Canada can buy first class bituminous coal from the United States for less than $9 a ton.
Just here I might refer to something which may surprise some hon. members of the house. Pocahontas coal, which is very popular in Ontario, finds its way as far west as Winnipeg, where it is equally popular and where it is largely bought in preference to coal from Alberta. If United States coal can penetrate this country as far as Winnipeg; if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company sees fit to use United States coal on its lines from Montreal to Moose Jaw, there is not very much likelihood of the people in central Canada being able economically to use coal from Alberta.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: If the government has
given a cost rate to Ontario, is it not fitting that the people of Manitoba and Saskatchewan should receive the same rate?


John Power Howden: It seems reasonable that
they should be entitled to a cost rate, and I have heard that argument before. However, Manitoba is not clamouring for western coal, although if a favoured rate were granted, probably it would have the effect of displacing some American coal, and I would like to see that displacement take place.
I think it has been found that coal from the maritimes cannot be economically moved farther west than Montreal, or possibly Ottawa, even with a subvention of 50 cents per ton, benefits of the tariff, and a favourable boat haul. It has been tried out, but I do not think there is any use in our hoping to put coal from the maritime provinces or from Alberta upon the central markets of Canada. That is to be regretted because it is those markets which create the greatest demand. The last speaker, the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald) pointed out that foreign coal was being burned in a public building in Halifax. I do not know much about the maritime provinces but I assume that he had reference to the parliament buildings. Halifax is considerably closer to the coal mines than is central Canada, and if the people of the maritimes cannot see to it that their own coal is burned in their own capital and their own parliament buildings, how can we hope to burn coal from the maritimes in the central portion of Canada?


Finlay MacDonald: Will the hon. member permit me to correct him? The public buildings to which I referred were buildings of this government in Halifax, not of the local government.


Edward James Young: What do they
burn in the buildings owned by the local government?


Mr QUINN:: Nova Scotia coal.


John Power Howden: That may make some
difference, but not a great deal. If coal cannot be produced in Nova Scotia at a price to compete with foreign coal, then it is a sorry state of affairs.
While I am referring to the remarks of the hon. member for South Cape Breton, I would like to mention the ship which was built in this country at a cost of about $2,000,000. The hon. member criticized the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) and other hon. ministers for their inconsistency in not following up our free trade policy. The members on the other side of the house have been most energetic in their demand for relief for the unemployed labouring men of this country. It has been stated that this ship could have been constructed in the old country at a cost



Unemployment-Mr. Howden
of about $1,500,000. There may not be much difference between having this work constructed abroad and making a grant of $500,000 for relief purposes, but there are added advantages which accrue. The labouring men not only receive the benefit of that extra $500,000, but they receive also the benefit of the other $1,500,000. I do not consider that the hon. minister should be taken to task regarding that item.
The attack which has been made upon the hon. Minister of Labour has been a matter of extreme regret to me, but I must say that I feel sorrier for those who have carried on the attack than I do for the minister himself. I have grave reason to doubt if Canada has ever had a better minister of labour than the Hon. Peter Heenan. I have grave reason to doubt if Canada has ever had a minister of labour who has done more for the labouring classes or who has enjoyed the confidence of the labouring classes to a greater degree than has the Hon. Peter Heenan. I had occasion to discover that fact regarding some, fairly large contracts which were being carried on in Manitoba during the last year. Three contractors whom I know had engaged labour at rates entirely satisfactory to the men, who were delighted to obtain work at that period of the year. They were receiving from 75 cents to 80 cents per hour and were all satisfied with their lot, but the Minister of Labour, a member of this government, saw to it that those wages were increased from 75 cents to $1.10 per hour, and payments to the contractors were held up until that stipulation had been carried out.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What class of workers were they?


John Power Howden: They were carpenters- other classes of labour were concerned, and the rates were increased at the instigation of the Hon. Mr. Heenan.


Mr. THORSON:: That would be skilled labour?


John Power Howden: Yes. I think it should be mentioned that it was largely due to the urging of the hon. Minister of Labour that the government has carried on public works so intensively during the last few months. Hon. members opposite have complained that although the minister stated that these works were being proceeded with, they were unable to obtain any information as to the amount of money expended. It might interest the hon. gentlemen to know that since last fall this government has spent on public works something like $20,000,000. This amount cannot be considered as a donation, but it was

a fairly substantial expenditure and no doubt has had an extremely beneficial effect in relieving unemployment during the winter months.
I think we all realize that unemployment is an ever-threatening evil to our state, and is something which will have to be faced and dealt with by this country. I agree with some hon. members who suggest that the initial step might come from this house. The condition will become progressively worse from time to time, and this is something which, if disregarded, may well be fraught with dire consequences. During the past period of stress, as I indicated before, the government of this country saw to it that its servants were not allowed to suffer, not only so, but the plan of the president of the Canadian National Railways not to reduce iris forces was endorsed by the government at no small loss of revenue. The government, as T stated a moment ago, also pursued the building policy to which I have referred and which undoubtedly has helped considerably to ameliorate matters. Considering these things, I certainly do not think this government merits a motion of want of confidence and I shall certainly vote against the motion, but I am ready to join hands with all hon. members who are seriously anxious for a solution of the unemployment problem, in the nope that we may make Canada a better place for its labouring class to live in.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to congratulate the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) upon the very able address which he has just made to the house. With most of it, I am glad to say, I heartily agree, particularly with the first part in which he outlined the reasons for unemployment and offered certain suggestions for alleviating it. There is, however, one point on which I differ from him, although it may be considered a small difference. One of the reasons he claimed for unemployment was that a good deal of the 1929 crop and some of the 1928 crop was not yet sold. I should like to point out that as regards this crop, the producers have received most of the money coming to them and no doubt have spent it. Therefore, when the grain is ultimately sold, it will not make a great deal of difference with regard to employment or unemployment.


John Power Howden: It probably did make a
difference.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I wish to congratulate the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) on having brought this all-important subject

Unemployment-Mr. Spencer
before the bouse. He has been criticised for bringing it in as an amendment to the motion for committee of supply, but I do not blame him, for the simple reason that he wished in the first place to bring this subject before the house by way of resolution, and as private members' day has been cancelled, he had no alternative to the procedure he adopted.
He has also been misunderstood so far as his intentions with regard to the resolution are concerned. It has been intimated from the government side of the house that the resolution calls for large government expenditures. In his resolution he does not ask for any government expenditures at all. If the recommendations are carried out, there might even be a saving in expenditure. For instance, as the hon. member who has just taken his seat has said, in trying to rectify the unemployment problem we might cut a large amount off the immigration estimates; we might save money in other ways, and in the long run it might not involve any extra expenditure on the part of the government. I am glad the hon. member brought this subject up, because it is of fundamental importance. It is a subject that will grow in importance from time to time, because unemployment will increase from year to year as long as we have our present system of production and exchange.
I am interested in this subject, not from the point of view of its provincial, federal or international significance; not because action taken to ameliorate the present conditions might benefit the labourer, the farmer or the professional worker, but because first and foremost it is a human subject. It is a human subject because it deals with many thousands -and the number will certainly increase- who are at the present time suffering from lack of food, clothing and shelter. This is a phase of the subject we cannot ignore; and it has not been touched upon by more than four or five of the hon. members who have spoken in this debate.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), speaking in this debate on April 1, referred to the action of the Dominion-provincial conference held in 1926, and stated that none of the provinces except Manitoba refused to take full responsibility for the expense in connection with unemployment. I challenged that statement at the time and reminded him that I knew the province of Alberta had refused to acknowledge full responsibility for the expense. He was at the moment reading from a bluebook which was supposed to be a record of what had taken place at that conference. It must have been only a synopsis and not a full one of what had taken place.
I reminded the minister that he had in his possession a statement made by the premier of Alberta at the conference named, and for the benefit of the house I am going to read the statement to which I referred. Speaking on unemployment relief, Premier Brownlee said:
For some years in the past the Dominion has been assuming a certain percentage of the cost of unemployment relief, and we think, in all fairness it should be continued. I am not sure we did receive our proportion last year; my memory is we did not, the reason for that being, in the province of Alberta we arranged with the municipalities a scheme of relief by which the province took care of unemployment among single men, the municipalities the married men.
The department at Ottawa seem to feel that this was not in accordance with their ideas and did not make us a contribution as in previous years. Now, unemployment, as far as western Canada is concerned, is caused to some extent by the immigration policy, and we feel the Dominion government should assume some proportion as in the past, and should not insist on any one definite scheme between the municipalities and the provinces.
I sent this statement to the minister on February 28, and I received a reply in acknowledgment on March 3. Therefore I think the statement he made the other night in regard to the matter was, to say the least, unfair. Moreover, in regard to unemployment in Alberta this last winter, they estimate it will cost the province not less than .$393,000. This is a sum larger than any that the province has previously been called upon to pay for that purpose by no less than $200,000 in round figures. I understand that the number of the unemployed in Canada to-day is in round figures, 100,000. I think therefore that according to these figures the prairie provinces with their small population are carrying quite a fair share of this burden.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) for the very excellent speech he made last night. I differ from him, however, when he referred to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) and said that the people of eastern Canada would not expect much consideration from the men on the prairies because they were so taken up with the growing of grain that they had no interest in the industrial centres. I want to remind the hon. member that there are no bigger hearted men anywhere than the men on the prairies, and if there is distress, whether it is on the prairies, in central Canada or in the maritime provinces, he will find that those people are willing to do their bit and pay their share in relieving that distress.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I said the minister, not
the men on the prairies.

Unemployment-Mr. Spencer


Henry Elvins Spencer: I thought the hon. member had reference to the men on the prairies generally.


Hugh Guthrie: No, to the minister.


Henry Elvins Spencer: When the Prime Minister spoke on April 3, I had hoped that as a student of social problems he would give us one of those able speeches which he can make and often does make in this house, dealing with the problem that is confronting us, stating whether he considered it a federal, provincial or international problem, showing the causes why it was with us and why it was increasing, and at least point the way to how best we could relieve this growing distress and this growing expenditure on account of unemployment in Canada. I must confess, however, that I was very badly disappointed in his address. I had expected that he would make one of the best speeches of which he is capable. I cannot congratulate him on some of the remarks that he made during his address, particularly those of a partisan character. With reference to the province from which I have the honour to come, he said:
As regards Alberta, we have had no request from the premier or any member of the government of Alberta for assistance with respect to an unemployment situation there.
He further went on to say, if I remember correctly, and I do not wish to misquote him, that none of the provincial governments were represented at the unemployment conference which was held in this city. In that statement I claim that he is not correct as no less than three of the provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, were represented. With further reference to his statement that no action had been taken in this regard by the province of Alberta, let me point out that this morning I happened to come across in the Edmonton Journal of March 11, 1930, a resolution that was passed unanimously by the Alberta assembly, reading as follows:
Whereas unemployment constitutes a recurring and serious problem requiring large expenditures of public money for relief purposes and in non-productive work;
Therefore be it resolved that this assembly is of the opinion that the government of Canada should, with the least possible delay, call a conference representative of the federal government and of the provincial governments for the purpose of investigating and considering this problem, and particularly to consider whether any nation-wide plan of unemployment insurance is practicable and feasible, having regard to all circumstances;
Provided that in any action, legislative or otherwise, taken by the government of Canada following such conference, the province of Alberta shall not be deemed to concur therein, or to be bound thereby, until this legislature gives its approval thereto.

That is sufficient, I think, to show that the province of Alberta at least has taken the problem of unemployment quite seriously. It also is quite conclusive that the province does not consider that the, responsibility of carrying this burden is entirely its own.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, no government can claim exemption from responsibility with regard to unemployment so long as it controls the fiscal policy of the country, its immigration policy, and its currency and credit policy. I am sorry to see that in the course of this debate my friends of the official opposition have claimed that the only panacea for the unemployment situation is a change in the fiscal policy to higher and higher tariffs. If I were going to blame the government at all, I would blame them because they have not reduced tariffs where they might have done. We have seen in past years a large number of people, particularly from western Canada, drift into the United States, but so far as I know, and I know a great many who have gone to that country from farming in Canada, not a single one of them has taken up farming in the United States. That is an evidence of the poverty of agriculture in this country. If we are going to help agriculture, the basic industry of this country, one of the ways in which we can help it is to cut down the tariff on the many things which the farmer has to buy, particularly on those necessaries that go into his household.
With reference to immigration, we know full well that much against the insistent demand from this corner of the house during the last eight years, the government, with the fullest support of the opposition, have done their best to aid immigration to this country in greater and greater numbers. But the time has come, and it has probably been accelerated by the short crop which, unfortunately, we had in Canada last year, when the public generally realize that a stop has to be made. Looking at the figures of deportation for 1929, I see that they have risen to the large number of 3,267. Of these, 1,788 are listed as public charges. They would not be public charges if there was lots of work in this country, and if there is not plenty of work for them to do, it is proof that we had too many men with us at the time, or these men would have found work. But the most regrettable thing about these figures is that no less than 574 people were deported for criminality. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), in the very excellent speech he made yesterday, pointed out that there was a very fine line to be drawm between the unemployed and the unemployable. In that I quite agree. He said further that there was also a fine line

Unemployment-Mr. Spencer
to be drawn between the unemployable and the criminal cases. There is not one of us if placed in the same position, say of starvation, particularly if we had a wife and children depending upon us, who would not hesitate to take food to sustain life. Therefore it seems to be the duty of any government not only to see that the country is not over populated, but also to see that the people have work, and particularly to arrange that there are as few people as possible so badly off that they have nothing to lose. The most dangerous position for this or any other country to be in, is to have a large proportion of its people destitute, for these unfortunates in their extremity will have slight respect for law and order. I fear that is the position we shall drift into if we do not make some change in our economic system.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni also raised the question of the cost of looking after the unemployed. I entirely agree with him that we cannot afford not to look after them. I would remind the house that in Great Britain, where they have had a serious unemployment situation for a long time, they adopted unemployment insurance, and it has had a marked effect in reducing crime, so much so that they have been able to close some of their jails. In other words, unemployment insurance, or the dole if you like, has relieved extreme poverty; and we all know that poverty is the mother of crime.
We often hear that machinery is doing away with man power, that is, it is doing the work that men used to do, and some argue that the men so displaced will be employed in making more machines. This fallacy I think, has been exploded by several speakers during the course of this debate. I may be permitted to refer to an instance that comes within my own personal recollection. I well remember the time in Great Britain some years ago when men and boys used to be employed by the thousands in selling boxes of matches to railway passengers. Then somebody invented a very simple slot machine. These machines were placed on the station platforms and all the passengers had to do was to put a penny in the slot whenever they wanted a box of matches. It is quite possible that the men and boys who were thus displaced were able to get employment in the factories manufacturing those machines; but in a few years enough of such machines could be turned out to put one on every railway platform in the United Kingdom, and as, barring accidents they would last for a hundred years, it will easily be seen that within a few years at the latest, those men and boys would again find themselves among the unemployed.
Some people think that we are still in the age of scarcity. That was the case not more than fifty years ago, but they fail to appreciate that to-day, through the aid1 of science and invention, we can with ease produce all the goods we need. This is true not only of the factory but also of the farm. The whole problem is to get the clothes and food that we can so easily produce distributed to the population that needs them. In a word, today the problem is one of markets, both domestic and foreign. To-day Canada can produce more wealth than all her inhabitants need. Every session we hear in the Speech from the Throne of the great prosperity this country is enjoying, but as the hon. member who last spoke (Mr. Howden) said, prosperous as this country may be, the rank and file of the people are not well off. This can be proved very readily by looking at the income tax returns, where we find in round figures that only fifteen per cent of the population pay income tax, which means that the other eighty-five per cent do not get sufficient income to pay the tax. It is admitted that large numbers of our people are on the verge of poverty-want and abundance go hand in hand. Speaking at an unemployment conference in Baltimore last April to deal with local and national unemployment, Dr. Sumner Schlicter, professor of economics at Cornell university said:
We are eliminating jobs faster than we are creating them. The problem before the nation is how to create new jobs as rapidly as machines destroy the old ones.
We must face the five-day week and the six-hour day.
Is there any more reasonable demand than that every man willing and able to work shall be guaranteed that opportunity?
Let me also refer to Doctor Irving Fisher, head of the department of political science at Yale university. He advocated unemployment insurance, stabilization of price levels and currency, stabilization of seasonal employment and the regulation of employment by building programs.
I have been amused during this discussion to notice how much stress was placed by certain hon. members on a higher tariff as the only panacea for unemployment. We have only to look to the United States, one of the highest tariff countries in the world, where unfortunately to-day, both for themselves and the world, they have over 6,000,000 unemployed. If the 9,000,000 of our people to-day had all they needed without any extravagance, there would not be a single mill or factory idle throughout the country. The answer, of course, for our present condition is largely insufficiency of purchasing power. Our money

Unemployment-Mr. Spencer
system places industry and the people in a strait-jacket. Some blame must be laid at the door of the policy known as the gold standard, under which we are supposed to keep down the currency in circulation in relation to the amount of gold we have in our vaults, and to issue credit only in proportion to the amount of currency. If, for instance, we have a limited amount of gold, or ill luck in finding more, and the country demands a large increase of credits to carry out needed developments, those developments will be handicaped because of the system to which we tie ourselves. The time will come, to my mind, when we shall have to recognize that we must place the country on a "goods basis" and not on what is termed and claimed to be a "gold basis." These conditions exist in most modern countries. We have heard that France, being a protectionist country, is well off. I think this statement was exploded only yesterday by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), when he pointed out that France was not increasing her population and was one of the few countries in the world which was wise enough after the war to refuse to have her currency deflated. Our fiscal policy in respect to unemployment will not solve the problem. It might make a slight difference one way or the other, but ultimately neither free trade nor protection is a panacea for the problem before us. The economic warfare existing between countries will lead ultimately only to military warfare; war is inevitable under the present economic system. Nations must adopt a new system of distributing goods, because machine power is emancipating mankind from toil. This was very ably expressed the other day by my friend the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), and I will not take up the time of the house repeating his remarks. He placed on record the most outstanding facts in this connection I have ever heard.
Unemployment insurance will help to some extent. I am not suggesting for one moment that it will solve the problem, but like old age pensions it will give the people a certain purchasing power; it will keep them from penury and protect them from extreme suffering, thereby helping to eliminate a certain amount of crime. The taxation necessary to get the money for unemployment relief will, to a certain extent, help to level incomes, but it will not increase the volume of money. Though it is only a temporary relief, I am in favour of it, because I think it is a great deal better than the policy of stagnation under which we are slumbering at the present time. The policy of immigration is, of course,

relative to unemployment and I am very glad that the government of the day has realized this fact and has decided to change its policy in respect thereto. We have heard many figures as to the world's jobless. Different figures have been stated during the course of this debate, but the figures I obtained the other day are, to my mind, fairly accurate. I have a statement before me from the London Daily Herald, which gives the number comprising the world's jobless as between
15.000.	000 and 16,000,000. Of this total the United States has 6,000,000 unemployed; Germany, 4,5000,000; Russia, 2,000,000; Great Britain, 1,500,000; Japan, 800,000, and Italy,
500.000.	This article goes on to say that the hope long held by economists that the situation was only temporary and would right itself, has vanished, and that unemployment seems likely to increase rather than to decrease.
Although this discussion has taken up considerable time in this house, it was no doubt introduced because the hon. member responsible for it felt he had to bring it forward as an amendment to the motion to go into supply. He had no other opportunity, owing to the fact that private members' days have been cancelled. For my part, however, I do not regret that the subject has come before the house for discussion. The subjects of unemployment and financial reform are, to my mind, two of the outstanding subjects to which this parliament particularly, as time goes on, is in duty bound to pay more attention. We have had some very excellent speeches with regard to this subject, but as I said before, only five or six of the hon. members have, in my opinion, actually reached bedrock. It does not matter what government may be in power; they will always have this unemployment problem to solve until we pay more attention to the very important problem of distribution, and as to how we can make it possible for the people of this country to get the purchasing power to buy the goods they require.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the remarks of my hon. friend from Battle River (Mr. Spencer). His speech follows in the train of others I have heard from him, and like those others bears the impress of thought and consideration.
I propose to join my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), in support of his resolution and to vote for it. It is drawn in such wide terms that it has invited discussion not only of the situation as it exists to-day, but of the causes of that situation,

Unemployment-Mr. Geary
and of possible solutions of the problem as we have it before us. My hon. friend from Battle River, in common with others, has engaged himself more particularly with the root causes, as he sees them, of the condition which we face to-day. It is well that we should have had such a discussion, giving an opportunity for exposition of the various views which are held in this house as to our position in regard to unemployment. I do not propose, however, to deal so much with the question of the cause of unemployment as with the fact that it exists, and to offer some suggestions as to how it may be immediately met-to use the exact wording of the resolution.
It has been very instructive to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), w'ho in giving his views, lays particular emphasis upon his conviction that we must return to the question of distribution of production-not so much production itself, but the question of distribution of production, and the profit taken. He suggests that in that way we might arrive at some solution of the cause of unemployment. Others have considered the question of immigration; others have dealt with the supersession of man power by machinery. One hon. gentleman has said that in his view our difficulty is in the worship of the " fetish " of maintaining the gold standard. It would be very interesting to enter into a discussion of all these points, but it is not my purpose to do so. For my own part, I will say what is probably not to the taste of my hon. friends to my left and my friend who proposed this resolution, that I think one of the main contributing causes of the difficulty in which we find ourselves today is to be found in the fiscal policy of the government. With that ground I am not going to deal; other opportunities will present themselves, and it does not seem to me that I would be serving any useful purpose to elaborate further upon a point which has already been well put to the house in this debate.
We must agree, and take it as proved, that we have to-day a serious situation in regard to the employment of our people. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) has accepted that proposition. Not only does he make no attempt to deny it, but one cannot read his speech without observing that he is fully conscious of the importance of the situation; I venture to say if we were able to read his mind it would show that in his personal view the proper thing to do, out of consideration for the rights of the people, would be to take some action, and to take it at once. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) says
unemployment does not exist to-day in such a degree as to warrant our attention at the present time. I do not know which of these hon. gentlemen is in the better position to know the facts. I would think that he who is supposed to be more in touch with labour conditions than any other member of the cabinet, the Minister of Labour, would ascertain exactly what conditions existed in Canada in that regard, and that his finding that serious unemployment exists, should be valid and sound.
The Prime Minister seems unaware of some things that have occurred, and I should like to make a slight correction in what he said yesterday, when he stated that no municipalities have ventured to express their views to this house or to the government. I took part in a deputation from the city of Toronto and the surrounding municipalities, the head of each municipality being there, and without doubt these gentlemen stated clearly the very serious conditions which exist in their municipalities in regard to unemployment. The Prime Minister was corrected also by my hon. friend from Battle River with regard to the province of Alberta, so I venture to say that he has not thoroughly acquainted himself with the conditions as they exist. For that reason, and also because I believe the Minister of Labour is in the better position to know, I agree with the Minister of Labour that there is a very serious condition of unemployment in the country to-day which merits the immediate attention of the government.
I do not, however, agree with the attitude of the Minister of Labour with regard to that situation. I remember two lines of a song descriptive of a bird which roams the deserts of another continent. This bird is quoted in this way:
"I will bury my head in the sand," quoth he,
"And I won't tell where I am."
It seems to me that is exactly the position this government are taking at the present moment; they think that by concealing the facts of the situation from their eyes they can ignore them completely.
The Prime Minister has discussed the question of the constitutional limitations of the federal parliament, and I should like to say just a few words on that point. As I understand him, he does admit quite freely that there is no restriction on parliament voting money to be spent in any way that parliament desires it should be spent, but he goes on to say that under the British North America Act unemployment relief is not one of the matters for which the government

Unemployment-Mr. Geary
should provide by expenditure of public money. We are authorized in one very broad clause of the British North America Act to enact measures for the peace, order and good government of the Dominion of Canada. I do not say for a moment that that definitely authorizes us to impose financial liabilities or responsibilities upon the provinces or to interfere with the provinces on the question of contracts. However, under that provision the Canada Temperance Act was upheld many years ago as being within the jurisdiction of the Dominion, and I would point out that at all events, following the argument of the Prime Minister, anything which affects the peace, order and the good government of Canada is something with which the Dominion properly can deal. Surely no one will deny for a moment that unemployment is productive, not of order, but rather of disorder.


Mr. CANNON:: Will my hon. friend allow a question? Has it not been decided many times by the privy council that these opening words of the residuary clause mean that this power can be exercised only provided that we are not dealing with subjects included in section 92?


George Reginald Geary: Yes, that is quite true.
Mr, BENNETT:	No, it has been decided
in the opposite way.


George Reginald Geary: Let me put it this way:
This is one of the subjects allotted by section 91 to the Dominion, but it is restricted to a great extent by the exclusive power and control given to the provinces under section 92. However, it is also clear, as I am sure the Solicitor General knows, that the power given the Dominion under section 91 is not strictly so limited. That is to say, the Dominion power can reach over, impinge upon and interfere with the exercise of provincial powers if such is necessary or if it is ancillary to the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament. With regard to something which may be ancillary to a provision for the peace, order and good government of the Dominion, or in a matter which has grown too large to be considered local, we may reach over into the provincial sphere. I think that is a correct statement of the law in that regard.
There is no question but that the regulation of trade and commerce is within the jurisdiction of the Dominion. That is a very wide power, and I fail to see how the provinces, in exercising any of their powers under section 92, can bring about unemployment. Unemployment must result from the exercise or non-exercise of the powers of the Dominion; there is nothing under provincial juris-
 '
diction which would bring about the result. Similarly there is the question of immigration. Hon. gentleman during the course of this debate have indicated that the immigration policy has had a very great deal to do with unemployment, particularly in western Canada. With that statement I am inclined to agree. Now, since unemployment may result from the policy of this or any other federal government in regard to immigration, so far is it a matter which can be dealt with by this Dominion government.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The statement my hon. friend has just made is fully borne out by the fact that the premier of one of the western provinces announces that 61 per cent of all the relief granted this year was granted to immigrants.


George Reginald Geary: Yes, that confirms the
impression I had gathered from listening to my hon. friends to my left. Yet the Prime Minister yesterday blamed this party for all the immigration difficulties of the country. I remember very well the first campaign in which I was engaged in connection with the federal parliament. That was in 1925, and during that campaign the Prime Minister outlined four distinct points upon which that election was being fought. They were the tariff, railways, immigration and Senate reform. The immigration policy of the government at that time was to bring in more people. It was not a Conservative policy; it was a policy of the Liberal party five years ago, at the beginning of a new parliament. That parliament did not last very long, and perhaps my hon. friend meant to say that by the beginning of the next parliament conditions had changed, but that was not the case. Until this year the government have taken no steps with the view to restricting very severely immigration into this country.
The Prime Minister stated that the provinces have under their jurisdiction such things as charities and eleemosynary institutions. That is not at all applicable to the situation we have to-day. That refers to such things as asylums or other institutions, incorporated bodies if you like, which take care cf people who are indigent or in need of some sort of help or treatment or assistance of that nature. By no stretch of the imagination can it be deemed to include charity. Much less can it be taken to include what is spoken of here, which is not charity but rather the provision of work to be done by the unemployed, for which they will receive money and for that money give value. Similarly with municipal institutions; that point can have no bearing here, nor can matters of a local or private

Unemployment-Mr. Geary
nature, because this is a general, national situation. The only ground upon which tae Prime Minister can rest is that property and civil rights come within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and that that might interfere with the exercise of any compulsion by this Dominion. But is there anything in that analysis of the respective jurisdictions of the Dominion and the provinces to prevent the Dominion from, first, spending its money in the alleviation of unemployment or, second, taking the initiative in calling a meeting of the provinces and the Dominion in order to evolve some system of unemployment insurance, or a general discussion of the situation? That is the point I desire to make in my analysis of the question of jurisdiction.
The municipality is primarily liable. Whether or not it is right as a matter of fact, in practice it is so. It is the city hall or the town hall-the mayor or the reeve-they are accessible to the man or woman who desires employment, and naturally the matter is brought up in that form. It is then passed on to the province, and in cases of extreme need it should be passed by the provinces to the Dominion. I think that is all we desire at the present moment to draw to the attention of the government, the theory that the Dominion cannot absolve itself from taking some interest in this matter.
If a poor chap were to come to one of us and ask for some work, such as cutting wood or mowing grass or anything which might be within our power to give Kim, I do not think anyone would feel that he was doing right if he catechized that man and said: "Are you a Grit? Are you a Tory? Are you a Jew or a Christian? Do you speak English or French?" It would be a poor man indeed who would grant relief only upon such a catechism as that. Yet the Prime Minister has indicated that as being the principle upon which relief should be given to the provinces. That was his meaning when he said: If you are a Tory, you come to us with no hope of success; if you are a Progressive you can come to us with partial hope of success, and if you are a Grit you can come to us with the most complete hope for success. It would be bad enough for one of us so to conduct his affairs, but when the Prime Minister of this Dominion adopts that attitude in regard to provincial relations, it is to me beyond all question of right doing. I suppose the right hon. gentleman made those remarks in that fine zeal for unity which he is preaching from one end of this country to the other.
Knowing the conditions in my own city, and having heard of the conditions which exist elsewhere, my view is that immediate
action should be taken, not next week, not the week after, but to-day. Other forms of relief may be considered a little later, but a sum of money should be made available immediately in order to take care of the requirements of the moment. In suggesting this I do not forget what other hon. members have offered in the way of a solution of this problem. I agree with the hon. members for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) and Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson)), and with other hon. members who have stated, against the dictates of their leader, that in their view this government should initiate the calling together of the provinces with a view to considering some form of unemployment insurance. I do not know whether or not I am correctly quoting the hon. member for St. Boniface, but the other hon. gentleman stated in terms that he felt that the Dominion government must Share some of the responsibility for unemployment. If the responsibility be shared by this government, surely something should be done by it towards alleviation. Although I do not possess the knowledge necessary to enter into a concrete discussion of this matter, I believe that a system of unemployment insurance could be worked out, providing for contributions and actuarially sound. All these things should be the subject of discussion with the provinces. The provinces are vitally interested and this government should lead the way in suggesting a conference or discussion of this matter. I do not think it can be said that the provinces should do this, because at is not possible. We have in this government a central body dealing with all the provinces and it is in a better position to initiate a conference of that sort than is any one province An endeavour should be made to have all the provinces attend this conference, but the Prime Minister says, "No, we will not do anything of the kind, we will wait until the provinces come to us." I would like to point out to the house that having said that the Prime Minister immediately nullified any good which might be in his suggestion, by saying to the Tory provinces: You need not come, for you will not get a five cent piece.
I have no desire to be drawn into a partisan condemnation of the Prime Minister; his words speak for themselves; he who runs may read. That is the exact attitude taken by the Prime Minister, and I do not desire to emphasize it. Government should not proceed on any such basis. If a conference were called the provinces should be able to feel that they are coming to discuss a matter of jurisdiction or contribution in the creation of an unemployment insurance scheme, and not that any favour or refusal would be based upon their

Unemployment-Mr. Geary
political affiliation. The present policy of the government is that certain provinces would be refused.
I would like to consider in a brief manner the various suggestions put forward by hon. members. While I press my suggestion that money should be provided immediately, I do not by any means disregard the valuable information given to the house by other hon. members. The hon. member for Bow River contended that an investigation should be held into the causes of unemployment. That would also be an investigation of the solution of the difficulties, economic or otherwise, under which we labour at the present time. The hon. member's suggestion is well worthy of thought and consideration and I would not for a moment suggest that it be discarded. I think one might well say that that is a very proper course to pursue, and it should receive attention. Perhaps this suggestion, instead of being brought to the attention of the house through an amendment, might be brought forward in a more definite form.
I think every hon. member has had some experience with the unquestionably pathetic results of unemployment, and I do not think I can usefully add to the store of knowledge of hon. members of this house. In common with others, I have had experiences which were heartbreaking, which made one think that all constitutional limitations should be smashed if that were necessary to give relief to people suffering as such people do. Rather than sit with folded hands, rather than give up the ghost as the hon. Minister of Labour has done, and as the government itself has done, I would like to see them up and doing in their attack upon this problem, and holding out some promise that their consideration would lead to action. It is the helpless, do-nothing attitude of the government which we deprecate most at the present time. We would urge them to forget what has been said; as the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said, let them forget what position they have taken; let them consider the matter from the standpoint of the human being and of the humanity that is in the whole question and say: We may have committed ourselves to a course of action, but we are men enough to free ourselves from that and we will endeavour with you to find some solution that trill clear up a situation that is tearing at the heartstrings of men and women in this country. May I say to the Prime Minister, as the hon. member for South Wellington said yesterday: if he does that he will find unanimity behind him; there should be no question of support from the men who sit to the right of the Speaker; he certainly will have no 
measure of opposition from those who sit in the corner or those who sit to your left.
An emergency exists. There is no use quibbling about it or finding a little lack of expression here or an over-expression there to indicate that it is not national; that it is local and provincial; that it is usual, seasonal, recurrent and not an emergency at the present time. There is no use arguing in regard to that. We have an emergency to-day and practically overnight the federal government could relieve it to an appreciable extent. If the government were to take that attitude they would have the support of the whole country.
The Prime Minister has asked hon. gentlemen to my left not to be inveigled into supporting any policy of the Conservative party. I know them as well as and perhaps better than he does, and I do not think we could do that. We have endeavoured to impress the truth upon them and they do not receive it. They have their own views and they are going to hold to them. Why does he not say to us: Do not be coaxed, cozened or cajoled into supporting any of the policies of the Progressives who sit to your left?


Edward Joseph Garland: The danger in the case of the hon. gentleman's party is greater.


George Reginald Geary: That is the situation as I
see it. One does not want to be sentimental about the matter; but one wants to see the facts as they are. The situation should be remedied and if it be of any avail I should like to add my voice to that of the hon. member for South Wellington who yesterday left the door open to the government to do what, not only from a humanitarian standpoint, but even from the lower ground of policy, is one of the best things they could do.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary I believe the unemployment question to-day is a national one. The Dominion is practically in control of all policies relating to labour, for instance, immigration, et cetera. That unemployment will occur during the winter months is perhaps inevitable because of our climate, but for the whole of 1929 work was scarce for all those who seek their living by their day's wage. In any case, unemployment is not an emergent question to-day; it is with us and with us to stay. The question is whether we want to tackle the problem in the manner we should. Unemployment insurance, while

Unemployment-Mr. Evans
not a cure, will at least relieve the sufferings of many, some of which sufferings I myself saw last winter.
There are many causes for unemployment and I am going to enumerate some of them. One fact that we must face in our economic life to-day is that we are everlastingly driving our workers into our industrial centres, our cities. Our population is being more and more separated into two distinct groups; and we need not seek very far for the cause. In the cities we have the capitalists and the wage earners; in the country we are getting more and more into the way of the older countries, and we have the landlord and the tenant; both these groups corresponding to the old days of feudal lord and serf.
The high cost of living certainly debars many people from entering into small industries and concerns for themselves; it puts all such enterprises out of reach of those who are willing to work. I meet to-day in the country many who express their desire to go into poultry raising or dairying on a small scale, believing that the family could keep those things going while it was profitable for the father to work out while wages were at their highest. But it seems to me that the policy which our friends to my right are advocating is killing this spirit of enterprise, and we are driving our population into two distinct groups.
Let us see what the man who would go into an industry on a small scale is up against. First he builds a house, however humble it may be. He goes to the lumber yard nearest to him and there he finds that the price of common lumber, probably planed on one side and one edge, is as high as $56 a thousand retail in any yard in Saskatchewan to-day. Perhaps he asks the price of siding and finds it runs all the way from $80 to $90 a thousand, I believe a good deal dearer than the price at which the mills in British Columbia have been delivering it in the Orient. He can, however, secure at $62 a thousand a grade of siding which, I would draw to the attention of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), carries a 25 per cent duty. This is the cheapest grade of siding at present in the yards in the west. It is called No. 2^ siding, and it is cut, I believe, from stumps, such as fallen logs that are over ripe. He can get this for $62 a thousand by calling a five-and-a-half-inch board six inches. Sometimes it is five and three-eighths inches, but he must pay for six inches. Every worker, too, must buy flour, and he finds that a sack of good household flour costs about eighty
cents more to-day at his point than the price at which the same grade made from Canadian wheat is quoted in Liverpool. In fact, flour, Manitoba Top Patents, is sold at about $1.69 per barrel cheaper in Liverpool than in Winnipeg. If he goes into dairying he finds himself up against a fiscal policy which can easily be explained by the action of the government in removing all protection on the dairy products which he expects to produce and placing it on the necessaries of life which he must buy, tending still further to herd our workers into the cities. Let me give a case in point. To provide that freer entry into the Australian market for the manufacture of Canada the government took three cents a pound duty off butter and placed it on raisins. In fact, this was the foundation of the Australian treaty. I would not mention it but for the fact that it seems to have been the policy of governments in this country for the last sixty years so to divide our people into two distinct groups, the capitalists and the wage earners. When there was a duty on butter which promised to be a factor in price fixing, it was at once taken off and that duty was placed on the necessaries of life. The old duty on butter was four cents a pound, but it was never then of any use to the farmer.
The efficiency of any nation must always be judged according to the cost of living and the cost of production in that country, and not by the ease with which the earnings of the worker are filched from him, which in the past has been mistakenly called prosperity. Land is cheap all over Canada to-day. It is the necessaries for settlement that are beyond the reach of the worker's energy and enterprise. We guarantee the profits of the owners of urban industry, but there is absolutely no security for the workingman, particularly the unskilled. There is no security either for the man on the farm. Everything seemingly is done to aid the capitalists, whose profits are guaranteed; but the workers are herded together without any consideration for their well-being. Urban industry to-day seems nothing better than an excuse to secure privileges by legislation and to filch the earnings of the farmer and the worker.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that capital was the great essential in industry. The great essential in industry, to my way of thinking, is energy and enterprise, and the end in view should always be the well-being of the subject. I had a resolution sent in to me, which I passed on to the Prime

Unemployment-Mr. Evans
Minister, from the Biggar division of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees, and it reads this way:
Whereas it has been brought to our attention that thousands of railway employees who would normally have steady employment throughout the year have been laid off, and are feeling severe privation 'and hardship resulting therefrom,
Be it therefore resolved that Biggar division No. 151, Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees, go on record as favouring a conference of representatives of the financial, industrial and labour organizations being called with a view to stimulating industry, restoring the confidence of the public, and reducing unemployment.
The Minister of Labour says that the Dominion government has no responsibility in the matter of calling a conference to consider the question of unemployment. I have thought since that perhaps it was a good thing that a conference was not called on the spur of the moment, because after calm and more mature consideration a commission may be appointed, composed of men of economic thought and foresight, who will go to the root of the matter and find some permanent solution of the problem for the future as well as the present. The fact is that the worker's lot in Canada-and I must say that it is also the lot of the farmer, who is being continually driven into the industrial centres-is a precarious and haphazard one, subject to all kinds of class legislation and class privileges which neither the agriculturist nor the workingman shares. The ease with which production is carried on should be a national benefit. If it is easier to produce, it should be easier for the workingman as well as the capitalist. To the capitalist, ease of production is a bonanza; but to the wage earner it is a nightmare.
I was struck by a remark of the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) in his speech the other day. He wants the farmer to make more butter, and he would place a duty on butter for that purpose. He really is speaking there for the great creamery combine or merger which is being formed to control that business from one end of this Dominion to the other, and for which he wants to secure all kinds of advantages. When the farmer's wife was the butter maker, everything she needed was, in price, out of line with the butter which she made and sold. But now that the merger is being formed, every advantage will be given to it, particularly the power of price fixing.
As I said before, the farmer has to pay high duties. He is penalized on all his raw material. Take salt, for instance. The packers and fish curers can get their salt in free, but the farmer must pay a high duty,

not only on the salt itself, but on the covers containing the salt. By these means the small farmer is soon driven to throw up his hands and to tell the mortgage holder or the banker to take what is left, and he himself then crowds in with those who are already standing outside the factory doors in our industrial centres waiting for employment.
The hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough, who made a very good speech in a way, deplored the fact that we were importing a large quantity of foodstuffs which we might be producing here. Yet he very illogically advocates an increase in tariffs, which is the very bane of agriculture. He never told us, though, with what we pay for the goods we import. If the price of farm products today were in line with the price of manufactured goods, and the farmer were given, the freedom of exchange which he needs, there would be a rush to the farm, and more people would be making their own living. Intensive farming would be the result, and our cities would not, even in the wintertime, be overburdened with workers. The means of production here should be the cheapest in the world. They say that unemployment exists in England as well as in Canada-one a free trade and the other a protectionist country; but the difference lies in this, that in England land is very dear, here it is cheap. In fact one of my protectionist friends told me not so long ago that if a farmer wants to sell out to-day in Ontario all he expects to get for his farm is the cost of his buildings -very little more. Indeed, I know one farmer who did sell out for less than the buildings could be put up to-day. That means the land is within reach of everybody, but the necessaries to make it productive are out of reach of the man who in an honest and humble way, with his own courage and enterprise, can make it go. Here is one of the real causes of unemployment at the present time.
Now, the demand for unemployment insurance is simply a natural growth of urban industry, as our fiscal policy is maintained to-day. We are subject to panics and industrial depression, very often seemingly for no cause whatever. The present situation may have been brought about largely through a bearish pressure on the stock market, which created a lack of confidence, and that in turn brought about a period of under-consumption. This is a fact anyway, that underconsumption is not only rife amongst the working class who are out of work, but people of independent means have curtailed purchases to bare necessities. The curtailing of the British preference by the latest restriction, a

Unemployment-Mr. Evans
measure brought into force by our government a year ago, has prevented, I feel, a very large portion of our wheat being moved, and in this way we have the cause of unemployment accounted for in large measure.
It is a terrible indictment of our economic system that while our warehouses are full of manufactured goods and our granaries are full of grain, our industrial centres are full of hungry people out of work. Our manufacturers for whom this nation has been bled white take upon themselves no responsibility for the welfare of the men and women who work in their factories, and on the most flimsy excuses they have thrown them out of employment. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which was actively engaged in immigration, turned immigrants loose on a sympathetic rural municipality or village without any further care for them. I have here a letter written by the pastor of one of the churches in MacGregor, Manitoba, in which he says:
I had made up my mind to write you regarding a number of Welsh miner immigrants. Their statement to me was that they had come to Canada under what was known as the Canadian Pacific Railway cottage scheme. Their passage was paid, and then when they arrived in Canada they were to be put in a cottage with furniture supplied, and at once they were to receive wages amounting to about five dollars per day. Then after a year's experience on a farm they were to be placed in charge of a farm for themselves, etc. Rosy and bright was it not? When they arrived here, the cottages were old, unused, unfurnished houses, and there were no farmers looking for men at any such wages. I do not think much is to be gained by having men come to Canada under any such conditions, but at the same time the citizens of Canada ought not to permit any company whatsoever to bring immigrants here and dump them on a community in the expectation that the neighbours of those unfortunates would not see them starve. Four of the five families went into Winnipeg securing work for the summer, but how about the winter ?
They are there to-day, swelling the ranks of the unemployed.
Regarding the conference which the Minister of Labour has been urged to call, the Saskatoon Star has this to say:	'
Only the Dominion government can take a proper survey of the economic problems thus created, chiefly the problem of seasonal unemployment. This is very clearly a national issue. No province or municipality can see the whole of it or attempt to control the movement of seasonal workers.
There are other reasons why the Dominion government has a duty to give a lead. It is responsible for immigration policy. It can, if it chooses, shut the door tight on immigration or open it wide and the policy it elects to follow evidently has an important bearing on the state of the labour market. Again, the
Dominion government is the only government in the country which has any control over the monetary and financial policies of the banks, another powerful factor in limiting or enlarging opportunities for employment.
I think a duty rests there on the Dominion government, and I shall hope to see a commission appointed that will go to the root of this matter. A similar resolution to the one I have already read was passed by the United Farmers of Canada at a conference composed of the executive of the united farmers, the trades and labour council and the churches in Saskatoon. They, too, called on the government to investigate the present situation. I believe with the Star that the government must take the responsibility in a very large measure for unemployment, seeing that they control practically all the policies relating to labour conditions. I believe, too, that the present crisis is largely due to the inelasticity of credit. In point of fact, since the bank is the nerve centre of modern business, all crises are financial more or less.
Now, whatever we do, there is a duty we owe to those who are suffering hunger and the want of the necessaries of life, and without doubt some way will have to be found to bring about a scheme of unemployment insurance. The responsibility for this must be placed on the protected industries, and I believe with a proper system of such insurance based on the responsibility of the protected parties, the manufacturers of this country, a far more stable condition of affairs would be brought about. I am sure that under such a scheme employers could not create panics in the hearts of their workers through the threat of taking their jobs to the extent that it is done to-day. Labour is itinerant because of the uncertainty of employment. Employment insurance must be based chiefly on protected industry. Established industry in Canada to-day has an assurance which is not enjoyed by capitalists in any other country, and these capitalists must be made responsible for the working men whom they have induced to take employment in their factories. At the conference held by the United Farmers of Saskatchewan, the secretary of the trades and labour council told us that a very large concern which had established itself in Regina employed last year about a thousand workers. It laid off practically three-quarters of them at the beginning of this winter. When the manager was consulted he made the statement that it was the policy of his company to have one man on the job and two at the gate. It is unreasonable to expect that the nation's workers should be subjected to the exigencies of capitalism, and panics created to satisfy

Unemployment-Mr. Evans
greed. I would tolerate protection in some form, and to some extent, if it were extended to the worker, but it is unreasonable to tax their necessaries of life. If the protectionist system, which at the present time is only a debauch, could be extended to the worker, and give some assurance to the wage earner, it might be more tolerable. There is no stability in our present method of manufacturing and distributing goods, and we may as well ask ourselves what it is that gives value to the subscribed capital of going concerns, all of which depend upon the exploitation of the people. It depends very largely on the control of parliament by the capitalistic concerns of to-day. Let me quote the words of Roger Babson, that great wizard of business and finance. This is what he has to say in regard to capitalistic investments:
The value of our investments depends not on the strength of our banks but rather on the strength of our churches. The underpaid preachers of the nation are the men upon whom we are really depending, rather than the well paid lawyers, bankers and brokers. The religion of the community is really the bulwark of our investments.
To my mind those words are rather significant. It is a telling indictment against our present business methods when it can be said that the safety of the whole structure depends, not on a square deal for all, but on the want of proper information and the piety of our people.
Of the country's earnings last year, the banks took some $27,915,255 in net profits. Exorbitant profits mean under-consumption. We only need to know something of the A.B.C. of economics to understand that the fact that there are exorbitant profits means that there must be under-consumption. I have the following figures as to the net profits of Canadian banks, obtained from the bureau of statistics:
Bank of Montreal	 $7,070,892
Bank of Toronto	 1,453,436
Banque Provinciale du Canada.	551,622
Canadian Bank of Commerce..	5,066,229
Royal Bank of Canada	 7,145,137
Imperial Bank of Canada.. ..	1,561,561
Banque Canadienne Nationale.	1,053,099
The profits of the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Dominion bank and the Weyburn Security bank are not given. If we take the returns of those three as published last year and add them to the others, it brings the total amount up to about $30,000,000. This is so much money taken out of the Canadian industry. Canadian industry during 1930 will be that much more dependent upon borrowed money, unless agriculture is able to export at a profit what it has on hand. We have been able

to meet these exorbitant profits by expanding agriculture year by year, but agriculture has reached the stage where it can no longer bear the strain. I see no hope of equity between the classes so long as our present system of privilege continues, and exorbitant profits are taken each year from the earnings of the workers. In fact, to me it is no wonder there is unemployment; big profits, I say, cause under-consumption. Credit and banking should be public utilities, publicly owned and controlled. More and more it becomes evident that the state must assume certain functions hitherto not deemed to be appropriate to it. Canada's inefficiency to-day is to be seen in the cost of living and the cost of production. The cost of living in Canada is higher than in any country to which she exports her goods, whether they be agricultural products or manufactured articles. Such a condition cannot be very long continued; the cost of living and the cost of production must be lowered as the first step in solving the unemployment problem.
With regard to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, I want to say that if this government refuses to cooperate with the provinces, then the provinces, as sovereign entities, will have to take steps to protect themselves. In the past neither the Dominion nor the provincial governments have had any control over the welfare of our people, as a result of whose brawn and sweat the industries of this country have been established. The fiscal policy of this country has been in the hands of the capitalists, who nominally own the industrial plants of the Dominion. I say they only nominally own the plants which they direct, and with which they exploit the workers of the country. Neither Roger Babson's method, the capitalistic control of parliament, nor .even the militia will be able to hold this country in peace, order and good government if the railway companies and other concerns, such as Besco, are allowed to import labour, as they import raw material, for their own .benefit. I have here a clipping from the Toronto Star which describes conditions in the United States and contains also a warning which was thrown out the other day to one of the committees of congress in Washington. The clipping is dated April 1, 1930, and states:
The country is faced with possibility of revolution unless the unemployment situation is met, William Green of the American Federation of Labour warned the Senate Commerce Committee to-day demanding enactment of the three pending Wagner bills to alleviate conditions.

Unemployment-Mr. Ryerson
Conditions are much the same in this country; we are following exactly the same policy that has brought United States agriculturists to the point where they must accept direct aid.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman's
time is up.


Mr. R. E. RYERSON (Brantford City):: quarters in the city and who lived under the conditions described until latter part of October. Upon their arrival in Brantford they were taken to the cottages and from there efforts were made to place them at farm work. Any hon. member who is familiar with farm conditions in the province of Ontario well knows that comparatively few farms are provided with secondary homes for hired help. With few exceptions the only homes available were deserted or anbandoned, most of which were unsuitable for human habitation. A family would be taken to one of these places and told:	There is your home, the rent will
be so much, and we have a temporary job for you on another farm, which might be a mile or a mile and a half away. Some thirteen or fourteen families found their way to the city and to the suburbs. Three or four families have been deported on account of having become public charges, and one woman was sent back on account of an improper medical inspection having been made.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL

[Stage Direction]
merchants' and employers' insurance

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) moved the second reading of Bill No. 52, to incorporate the Merchants' and Employers' Insurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked by my desk mate, the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier), to take charge of this bill of which he is the sponser.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House in committee on Bill No. 20, to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and annulment of marriage.-Mr. Woodsworth.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: On account of the absence of a number of hon. members on both sides who are anxious to be present when this bill is discussed in committee, I would ask that the bill stand.


Hewitt Bostock: Stand.



GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. J. E. GUERIN (St. Ann) moved the second reading of Bill No. 39, respecting government contracts.
(Mr. Ryerson.]
Ernest Lapointe: Explain.


Mr. GUERIN:: The other day when this
bill was being introduced I explained in a few words the nature of it. It provides that there shall be no age limit so far as workingmen are concerned, in connection with government contracts or contracts entered into by any organization, corporation or company other than the government, which organization, however, depends upon the government, has received, or may receive, or does receive government support. Consequently it includes many corporations such as harbour boards whose contracts would not necessarily be considered as government contracts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sorry, but we cannot hear at this end of the house.


James John Edmund Guérin: 
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: I am in sympathy with the purpose of this bill, but I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that clause 4 makes it a money bill, and therefore out of order. Apart from that, the bill does conflict in some degree with the working of the Workmen's Compensation Act of the province of Quebec. The Workmen's Compensation Act of that province is different from any other provincial act so far as I am aware, inasmuch as under the Quebec act employers are required to insure their employees with some insurance company. Employers are permitted to insure in any company they choose, subject to the approval of the Workmen's Compensation Board of the province. So that the Quebec Act, and the commission appointed under that act, have full control over the insurance under which the workmen are insured. Of course, the age of the workmen is a big factor in determining the premium that is to be paid by the employer, and I suppose that many employers of labour in the province are taking advantage of that fact and insuring their employees up to a certain age limit. That operates in the way my hon. friend has indicated, so that there is an age beyond which an employer does not insure his men and still have them protected under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
I am not sure whether my hon. friend from St. Ann (Mr. Guerin) knows that the labour representatives have been encouraged to expect that at the next session of the legislature of the province of Quebec the provincial act will be amended to place it on a somewhat similar basis to that of the Ontario act, which



Unemployment-Mr. Ryerson
provides for state insurance rather than insurance by a company.
Apart from the fact that this is a money bill, I have only this to add. There is a principle in this bill which we might consider, and I think it might well be considered under Bill No. 149, which is now before the house. I feel that we might be able to provide by regulation that workmen shall not be debarred from employment on public works simply because of their age. If my hon. friend will withdraw the measure I will undertake to see if we can incorporate such a provision in our own regulations.


James John Edmund Guérin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot see that there is any proposal in my bill to spend money, unless it be in the last clause referring to the fair wage that should be paid. I am quite willing to withdraw the clause, as I believe it will be covered by the regulations that are being prepared by the Minister of Labour; but I am not inclined to withdraw the three other clauses unless I see similar provisions written into the minister's bill. I do not know how far it would be in order for me to ask you to allow my bill to stand until I have an opportunity of seeing the clauses to be incorporated in the minister's bill, but if they do not cover what I am trying to provide for in my bill I shall be obliged to ask the house to proceed with it. I do not say that by way of a threat; I want to be as respectful as possible to the minister.


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid the bill cannot be allowed to stand as suggested, but in order to meet the wishes of my hon. friend I will move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask permission of the house to revert to Bill No. 31? I was delayed and could not be in the chamber when the bill was called.


Hewitt Bostock: It can be done only by unanimous consent. Is it the pleasure of the house that we revert to Bill No. 31?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands. The hour for
private and public bills being exhausted, the house will now revert to the motion that I do now leave the chair and the amendment thereto.



SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MR. HE.APS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for committee of supply and the amendment thereto of Mr. Heaps.
Robert Edwy Ryerson: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I had nearly finished describing the sad experience of a number of British families who were brought to this country last summer. It is not my intention to set out in detail the disappointments and sufferings of these people. But is it any wonder they should strongly resent their treatment? I submit, sir, that the whole shameful proceedings constitute a blot upon the fair name of Canada-a blot which should be wiped out at the earliest opportunity. I do not blame the government for the manner in which these people have been deceived, or for the treatment handed out to them upon their arrival here, but I do desire to point out that in permitting and assisting in this kind of immigration the government is imposing additional burdens upon the municipalities affected, and for that reason is morally bound to assume some responsibility.
Another point which I should like to bring to the attention of the house is this: that while there are unemployment problems and trade depression throughout the world, these conditions in Canada are, in my opinion, caused by the policies of this government in tinkering with the tariff and in lowering the tariff protection in certain lines of industries, which has made possible importation of enormous quantities of products of all kinds, any considerable portion of which, if produced or manufactured here, would have furnished employment for the greater part of those who to-day are unemployed. In that respect may I point out as one example the importation of agricultural implements for the calendar year 1929. The figures furnished by the bureau of statistics show for the period named that we imported agricultural implements to the startling amount of $31,845,326. Had one-half of these implements been manufactured in Canadian plants, we would have no unemployment in my constituency. This is only one example; there are many others of a similar nature affecting different centres of industry.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the house to an incorrect statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the course

Unemployment-Mr. Campbell
of his speech yesterday which I am sure he will desire to have corrected. He stated that unemployment was of a local nature in certain provinces only, and for the province of Ontario, Port Arthur, Kenora and Toronto were the only centres mentioned. In making this statement he evidently overlooked a large deputation representing many Ontario municipalities which waited upon the hon. the Minister of Labour on February 3rd in respect to this matter. In confirmation of this I desire to quote the Brantford Expositor of February 4, 1930:
Mayor Beckett Is Disappointed Sees Little Hope of Getting Federal Unemployment Assistance Says Critical Time is Now, Not Six Weeks Hence
Mayor Beckett who returned with Alderman Linscott from Ottawa where they were members of the deputation waiting upon the government yesterday with regard to unemployment matters, expressed himself this morning as disappointed with the prospects of getting assistance. 'The mayor was one of five spokesmen chosen for a very large deputation from many Ontario municipalities. He stressed the fact that the critical time in unemployment was right now and assistance not forthcoming before a month or six weeks' time would be too late to meet the real needs. He discussed the unemployment conditions in Brantford at this time and told the Minister of Labour, Hon. Peter Heenan, that with the assurance of Premier Ferguson that Ontario would bear a one-third share of the excess cost of local improvement works undertaken during the winter as relief measures, an assurance that the federal government would bear a like proportion, would enable him to telegraph a message at once to Brantford that would enable the Brantford city council, in session last night, to provide for an immediate start on an extensive program of local improvement work. Without the minister's assurance the much needed work could not be undertaken as under the act the city and the taxpayer on whose frontage the local improvements were constructed must bear the cost in certain proportions. Under the present winter conditions the cost of such work was three times what it would be under summer conditions. The property owners and taxpayers could not in fairness be asked to bear this extra burden, and the assistance from the provincial government was conditional upon a corresponding contribution from the Dominion government.
I will not read the whole report, but will merely give the last paragraph:
Expressing his disappointment this morning, Mayor Beckett commented that "When you have got to carry politics to the length to forget about the actual needs of the citizens in the communities, it is time we got rid of politics." The need for assistance he said, was immediate, and from the result of the meeting with the minister it appeared "just a case of these politicians passing the buck, one to another." 2419-82J
I hold in my hand a series of resolutions from the Brantford Unemployment Association which I would like to present to the house. This resolution is dated March 12, 1930, and is as follows:
Whereas the unemployed in Brantford have found it necessary to organize an association for their own protection and whereas unemployment is the natural result of the application of power and labour saving machinery to industry,
And whereas this association is of the opinion that a system of unemployment insurance is the only logical solution of the problem of unemployment,
Therefore be it resolved that this Brantford Unemployment Association petition the federal and provincial governments to take immediate steps to enact legislation providing for a system of unemployment insurance, and be it further resolved that in the opinion of this association the provincial and federal governments should immediately take such steps as may be necessary to permit of the federal government assuming full responsibility for the relief of unemployment in all parts of the Dominion.
This resolution is signed by James Robson Humble, 68 Queen Street, Brantford, Ontario.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: A
good deal of the discussion on the question of unemployment has hinged around the question of the relative responsibilities of the federal government and the various provincial governments. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) admits that the problem of unemployment is national in character, but he does not admit federal responsibility. It seemed to me that in his speech the Prime Minister attempted to put some of us who are supporting this resolution in a false position before the public by deploring the advertising that the debate gives to adverse conditions in the country. I cannot agree with such a proposition. As some other speaker said this afternoon, that is simpl.v the attitude of the ostrich; he sticks his head in the sand and persuades himself that the problem does not exist. It seems to me that the only sane way to deal with problems of this nature is to face them; we must admit that they exist and do what we reasonably can to meet the situation. May I in this connection quote the late President Wilson:
That man is not a pessimist who, when he sees the funnel shaped cloud approaching directs the feet of his wife and children towards the cyclone cellar; but the man is not an optimist, he is a fool-nay, a criminal-who at that critical moment neglects his parental duty and stands agape rejoicing in the manifestations of nature.
It seems to me this quotation has an application in the problem we have before us.

Unemployment-Mr. Campbell
I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say that no representations had been made to him on the question of unemployment by the various provincial governments. At the recent conference held in the east block representations were made by three prairie governments, those of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I correct
my hon. friend? I made no such statement; I did not say there were no representations made. I said there were no representations to the effect that the provincial governments themselves were unable to handle this question. That is what I said.


Milton Neil Campbell: Certainly the Prime
Minister conveyed that impression to the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not at
all. If my hon. friend will look at my words he will see exactly what I said.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am glad to accept
the word of the Prime Minister, and am pleased that he has set the matter right. Naturally I was very much disturbed, the same as many other hon. members, to hear the Prime Minister say that no relief would be given to the province of Saskatchewan because there is a government other than Liberal in that province. The Prime Minister did admit, rather grudgingly I think, that he was prepared to give some assistance to Progressive governments, but none at all to other provincial governments. In other words, in order for the poor, needy people to get consideration from the federal government they must obey the dictum to elect nothing but straight Liberal governments. I wonder if the Prime Minister would treat his own constituency of Prince Albert in a similar fashion. That is the constituency from whence he derived his seat in parliament; I wonder if he will tell the needy and hungry people there that they cannot secure consideration in this parliament because of the fact that the people in Saskatchewan have a government other than Liberal.
I enjoyed, as I am sure other members did, ihe extracts that the Prime Minister was pleased to read from his book entitled Industry and Humanity. I agree with all the statements he read. I always like to think of the Prime Minister as the man who wrote Industry and Humanity; I like to think of him as a humanitarian, and a man whose heart and sympathy go out to the common people. But, Sir, when I place the quotations from that book along with the statement he made in the house, I wonder what to make of it.
(Mr. Campbell.]
I agree with the quotations from the book; I agree with everything that the book contains, and it was a shock to hear the Prime Minister couple with his quotations the statement that relief would be withheld from those provinces who were represented by other than Liberal governments. When one compares that statement with the idealism, the altruism and noble sentiments expressed in the book, one begins to wonder if in the physical form of the Prime Minister there are two opposing spirits; one wonders, to use a common literary expression, whether he represents both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. However, I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine)-as a matter of fact, I think we all do-that the exactions and nervous strain imposed upon one holding so high and responsible a position as the Prime Minister must be very severe, and it is possible that when the Prime Minister made that statement, he was not in his normal temper or his normal state of mind. I can scarcely think that he was.
It is regrettable that this question of unemployment, involving the welfare and happiness of thousands of women and children, should be considered in the party spirit we have witnessed in this debate. It is my opinion that the question cannot properly be considered in this partisan atmosphere. It is something which calls for the cool deliberation of scientists and economists; it is not for the consideration of politicians who are placed in a political atmosphere.
When we come to the question of the relative responsibilities of provincial and federal governments I certainly cannot agree with the Prime Minister or with those who claim that this is a purely provincial or municipal matter. Let us take the case of a municipality that deals effectively with the problem, looks after its unemployed and provides relief or work, and compare it with the municipality which does not care for its unemployed. What is the logical outcome? The needy who are looking for work come into the municipality where work is being provided and where the people are being looked after. I can see no way in which to avoid such a situation. As a matter of fact, how can we prevent the needy, those who are out of work, from spreading from one province to another? To my mind there is only one government that can stop the people coming into the country, and that is the federal government which has control of immigration. For these reasons I say there is no way in which one municipality or one province can deal effectively with this problem. I am not one

Unemployment-Mr. Campbell
of those people who would lay the whole responsibility at the feet of this government- certainly not. There are great economic forces at work in the world to-day which neither this government nor any other government can control. We have to recognize that. These are world conditions, and Canada is only a small unit.
To come down to the local consideration of the question, however, and to deal with it as it affects Canada and as perhaps we might be able to control it, I would put the problem under three heads. I would say that first the trouble was caused by the recent stock market crash and the consequent reduction of the purchasing power of hundreds of thousands of people. That has had wide ramifications in industry and in finance, and naturally it has had a great deal to do with the unemployment conditions which exist today. Then I would say the reduction in wheat prices has had some effect, and of course that also is to some extent a reaction from the stock market crash and the consequent curtailment of buying by farmers. Under the third head I would put the large immigration into Canada during the past few years. There is no question about federal responsibility for immigration. During the last three years we took in 330,000 immigrants. The Prime Minister referred to complaints made against the government because immigration into this country was not large enough. Probably that may have been so, but I can inform him that no such complaint ever came from this section of the house. From 1922 up to the present time the group in this section of the house has protested against a vigorous immigration policy. We never took the stand that people should not be allowed into the country, but we were opposed to the activities either of the government or of transportation companies in order to induce people to come here.
May I say in connection with the number of immigrants brought in during the past year, which amounted to 165,000, that never at any time in the history of the United States was that country ever called upon to absorb so large a percentage of its own population as Canada was during last year, and ordinarily that would not be considered a very large number of immigrants to come to this country. I think the immigration into the country during the past few years has had something to do with the increase in wheat acreage, and of course that has had an effect on prices.
Then there is another question, and this of course is related to the question of the stock market. It involves the whole money system, and the question arises as to whether or not
we have the right money system. The matter of inflation and deflation has a great deal to do with unemployment, with business stagnation and with distress both in the rural and urban sections of the country. The hon. member for Westaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) last night gave it as his opinion that the unemployment in England to-day was the direct result of the deflation policy adopted by the British banks in 1920. Canada adopted the same policy, as did the United States. However, we are much younger countries, with greater resources, and it did not affect us so badly as it affected Great Britain. With that assertion I agree, and I think the reason that France has been in the happier position of recent years of having no unemployment problem is due in a very large measure at any rate to the fact that she did not permit deflation.
The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) this afternoon dealt with the question of the gold standard. The question as to whether or not getting away from the gold standard would change this condition is a very large matter. I have under my hand an article commenting on a book written by Professor Irving Fisher of Yale. In this book Professor Fisher points out that the trouble with the gold standard is that the unit of value, the measurement of value, is changing all the time. He has one remedy for dealing with the question, and the article points out that another remedy, from a different angle but involving the same thing, is put forward by Maynard Keynes, the distinguished economist of Great Britain. There is no doubt that the changing of the unit of value had a great deal to do with these problems.
Let me illustrate it in this way. We will say that a farmer secures 1,000 bushels of oats from a neighbour. The unit of measurement is a bushel, which is 34 pounds. If that unit is changing all the time, the way the dollar is changing in value, what is the result? The farmer incurs a liability for 1,000 bushels of oats, to be paid back perhaps in a year's time, but if at the end of the year, when his liability becomes due, he finds that he must pay back 1,000 bushels of oats on the basis of 60 pounds to the bushel, his debt is nearly doubled. That is the situation of thousands of farmers, business men and manufacturers to-day. Those who incurred liabilities even a year ago; those who borrowed money or incurred any kind of liability and are forced to-day, under deflation conditions with a slightly different unit, to pay back very much more than they actually borrowed.
Then the article goes on to say that Professor Fisher has recently issued a statement

Unemployment-Mr. Campbell
in which he gives it as his opinion that we are in for a period of low prices, business depression and unemployment. Professor Fisher states that the amount of gold that is being mined to-day is not sufficient to keep our currency up to the standard of our statutes, as far as maintaining the gold standard is concerned. He points out that the demands of commerce and industry for gold are very great; a large percentage of the gold mined is used in the filling of teeth and the making of jewellery, and there is not sufficient gold left to meet the requirements of our statutes in order to maintain a gold standard. Because of that fact, Professor Fisher points out that we are facing a period of low prices, of business stagnation, unemployment and distress.
Does that not seem an absurd situation? Let me put it in this way, to reduce the proposition to an absurdity. Supposing there were no gold mined at all; supposing all the gold mines in the world petered out and the production of gold ceased. Would that mean that if I have wheat to sell and some other man has clothing to sell, there is no medium of exchange by which he can buy my wheat and I can buy his clothes? That is exactly what it means, so long as we maintain this rather ridiculous system. Of course the gold standard is something like the British constitution, a thing which does not exist; because as a matter of fact we never have maintained the gold standard; there is not gold behind our currency as there is supposed to be. Our statutes are fairly flexible, and that is the only reason the system is workable at all. However, it does seem time that we began to inquire into this matter in order to try to get a permanent unit, something that would not be varying from day to day and causing all these business disturbances.
In a general way the unemployment problem is a result of the increased efficiency of the machines. There is no doubt about that, and that again is something governments cannot control and would not control even if they could. Let me again illustrate it in this way: Take the hypothetical case of say 1,000 people living on an island, with no contact with the outside world. We will say they have a perfect division of labour so that each person supplies his quota in the interests of the community. We will suppose that ten men have the responsibility of supplydng the community with food. If these men invent a machine which will reduce their hours of labour, or which will do the same work with two men instead of ten, would that mean there would be eight men doing nothing and being fed by the community? In a properly ordered com-

munity these extra hours of labour would be absorbed back into the whole community, and the hours of labour would be distributed all around and shorter periods of work would ensue. If they worked full time, some of the time previously expended could be used as extra time to produce luxuries and other unnecessary things. Of course, this is the idealistic way of considering this matter. We do not want to destroy the machine because an efficient machine is simply making a slave of the machine instead of the man; it is producing with less labour, but there is something wrong with our system when an efficient machine which does away with human labour is responsible for a great deal of unemployment, which in turn is responsible for misery and distress.
I believe that immigration has had a great deal to do with unemployment. I would like to read a report which appeared on February 28, in a Swift Current newspaper. This deals with the evidence given before the Saskatchewan royal commission on immigration, as follows:
J. S. Laycock, mayor of Swift Current, stated that in his opinion all immigration should be discontinued for a period of three to five years, or at any rate until the country had a chance to absorb and find employment for those already here. He was not opposed to immigrants coming to the country who had sufficient capital to establish themselves on the land and who would not become a charge on the province.
That gentleman went on to say that it would cost the town of Swift Current this year $5,000 for relief, and that is a very small town. He used some other pointed expressions regarding immigration. At the same sitting Mr. F. G. Westlake presented resolutions on behalf of the board of trade of Swift Current, which resolutions opposed immigration of any kind except in the case of those persons having sufficient capital to establish themselves and carry on without assistance. I cite these extracts as examples of the evidence presented before that commission. I would like to quote an editorial which appeared in the Manitoba Free Press on March 6, dealing with the recent immigration conference at Ottawa. That editorial refers to the statement made by the Prime Minister that unemployment was not a federal matter, but rather a matter which belonged to provincial and municipal governments. This editorial points out that recent immigration is a tremendous factor in unemployment. I quote:
For instance, Vancouver testified that 70 per cent of the men on its register were immigrants brought out here under some form of assisted immigration, and 58 per cent had been here less than five years.

Unemployment-Mr. Campbell
Calgary testified that 28 per cent of those unemployed were born out of Canada, and had come out to Canada during the past two years. The editorial refers to the fact that a very large proportion of the unemployed of Winnipeg were ex-service men, and it says:
Saskatoon declared that 40 per cent of the unemployed there were immigrants who should have gone on the land.
The editorial concludes:
-the general agreement seeming to be that 70 per cent of those on the list had been in Canada less than five years.
I realize that the government lately has changed its policy with regard to immigration. but even so I do not think the fact can be overemphasized that immigration has had a great deal to do with the unemployment problem, and I think this matter should be placed before the government for their future guidance.
Under the policy previously followed we have gone out into the highways and byways and pleaded with people and have done everything we could to induce thorn to come to this country. We have been doing our best to boiTOw the most terrible of all problems, the problem which confronts Europe and Asia, that of over-population. Canada should prize her free, open spaces, and should not be ready to give away the heritage of her people.
One of the causes of unemployment is the fact that the farmers are not purchasing as much as they did previously. One reason for this, although not the only one, is that agriculture has been made the shock absorber for the whole immigration policy. A deliberate attempt has been made, not only by the government, but by the transportation companies, to stimulate agriculture artificially, and when you artificially stimulate any industry or calling, whether it b<~ agriculture, manufacturing, or professional work, you throw the whole economic machine out of gear. Organized skilled labour has been able to hold a club over the head of the government, and it has been able to say: You must not bring in men to compete for our jobs. The unskilled labourer and the farmer are not so vocal, they are not so well organized; *consequently their industries have been forced to absorb the vast majority of the immigrants. I contend that the policy we have been following in the past is not only unjust and unfair, but it is unsound and uneconomic as a national policy. It would be just as fair and reasonable to advertise for *doctors, for lawyers, for school teachers, for manufacturers and such like to come in and lielp develop this country, as it is to bring in
farmers. I wonder what the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and his colleagues would say if we advertised in the newspapers of the United States and Great Britain in an effort to induce lawyers and professional men to come to this country and compete in their professions. There would be a terrible outcry from the members of those professions if anything like that were done. The farmer has not been so well organized, he has not been so vocal, and therefore his industry has been made the shock absorber.


William John Ward: In that case we might get cheaper legal services.


Milton Neil Campbell: Unemployment-Mr. Campbell
undertaken by any country in the history of the world. She proposes within the next few years to put under cultivation an additional
30,000,000 acres of land. Russia must produce an exportable surplus in order to pay for this machinery. That is a factor to be taken into account in the consideration of an immigration policy, and when we talk of breaking up more land and bringing more people into the country.
The new immigration policy recently announced by the minister is rather late. It seems to me it should have been put into effect many years ago. May I point out that to the extent to which we provide remedies to alleviate conditions in this country, to that extent will other people come in and try to absorb those remedies, and it may be necessary to provide an immigration policy that will protect our working people and farmers from too much outside competition. I have under my hand an article which appears in the last issue of the Financial Times. It is written by Mr. R. J. C. Stead, who, I understand, is publicity agent for the Department of Immigration. Mr. Stead points out that in 1900 Canada produced manufactured goods to the value of $481,000,000. In 1927 this figure had risen to $3,425,000,000, or an increase of 700 per cent. In spite of the fact, however, that the value of manufactured products increased by 700 per cent in the twenty-seven years, the number of employees in the factories increased by less than 100 per cent. He pointed out that Canadian agricultural products in 1901 were valued at $572,000,000. In 1927, only twenty-six years afterwards, this figure had risen to $2,224,000,000, or an increase of 400 per cent; but notwithstanding the large increase in the output, the rural population had in that time increased by only 33 per cent. He pointed out what I have already mentioned, that while there are complaints-and he was answering some of them -that the government was not bringing in a sufficient number of immigrants, never at any previous time in the history of the United States had that country been called upon to absorb so many immigrants in proportion to their own population. Mr. Stead further pointed out that since 1920 there was an increase of 22,388,000,000 tons of freight handled by United States railways. That is an enormous increase in the short period of nine years, but he pointed out that in spite of that huge increase there had been an actual reduction of 366,000 in the number of workers employed in that period.
My point is that Canada is capable, with the new and more efficient machinery we have, of making tremendous progress to-day

with her own natural increase in population. Of course I am not advocating the shutting of the door. As regards those who have the money to establish themselves and who wish to come in of their own volition, I have no objection to seeing them come in, but we should stop now, henceforth and forever all efforts by advertising and special inducement to bring people into this countiy. The trouble with the policy that we have been carrying on in the past is that it did not take into consideration the social and economic welfare of the people who were already here. Any immigration policy, present or proposed, should have as its only object the welfare and happiness of the people now in Canada. I quote from a recent newspaper dispatch some observations made by Professor Ottewell of the University of Alberta before the Canadian Club in Montreal:
Speaking before the Canadian Club in Montreal. A. E. Ottewell, of the University of Alberta, warned the capitalist class of the results that will flow from power farming, and advised that immigration should be curtailed in order that the farmers who were driven from the soil might find employment. He also advocated that "schools, churches and all social institutions should be overhauled to meet the new requirements."
Another newspaper article, dated at Winnipeg, November 29, in part reads:
Prof. A. R. M. Lower of Wesley College, Winnipeg, in a recent public lecture declared:
"We have no need of immigration to increase our population, and if immigrants in large numbers continue to come to us there can be but one result. Our own people-those who are born in this country-will have to go away. The presence or absence of immigration will not affect in the slightest degree the rate at which this country will grow."
"For sixty years," Prof. Lower proceeded, "we in Canada have been receiving so many immigrants that we have had to embark a large proportion of native-born for the United States. This proves that, in five years out of six we have had more than sufficient man power.
" 'Cheap' men will always drive out 'dear' men. The man who is willing to take the least stays here; the other goes away.	About
1,000,000 persons, native-born and immigrants, have left this country for the United States in the last seven years. This simply turns us into a training ground for United States citizens. The advent of the immigrant lowers the standard of living and makes the opportunities to the south of us loom larger in the eyes of the native-born.
"Artificial accession by way of immigration is at least only so much waste effort-at worst, a form of racial suicide."
May I refer hon. members to a very interesting book called Mankind at the Crossroads, written by Professor East of Harvard university? Professor East lays down the

Unemployment-Mr. Campbell
doctrine that population tends to increase with available food and land supplies and opportunities existing within the country. His doctrine conflicts rather with that we call the Malthusian theory, that put forward by Professor Malthus of Oxford. In this connection may I quote some figures from his book? Professor East gives the rate of increase per thousand of population in the various outstanding countries of the world, and he also gives at the present rate of increase the number of years it will take the respective countries to double their population. The figures are as follows:
Number of years to double
Country	population
France	 436
France as we know has an almost stationary population.
Norway	
Sweden	
Austria-Hungary
Spain	
England	
Japan	
Holland	
Germany	
Roumania	
United States..
Australia	
Canada	
83
80
64
51
38
24
Canada, because of its opportunities, increases the most rapidly in population. Professor East states that if Canada can support
60,000,000 people she will do well, and he says that she will approach that number in less than three-quarters of a century. The crux of Professor East's argument is that immigration does not and cannot increase the population; that to the extent to which we bring people in and absorb them in this country, to that extent we either drive our own people out or prevent their natural increase. That is a very interesting theory, and it is well worth considering.
The Prime Minister in his speech seemed to fear the demands on the treasury which would result from any federal measure of unemployment relief, and objected to taxing the people to assist the provinces to that end. He stated that hiis government, the Liberal government, was elected on a pllatform of economy, and he objected to taking money out of the federal treasury for the purpose of relieving unemployment. I have just the same objection as the Prime Minister has to taking money out of the treasury, but if he examines the public aocounts he will realize he will save enough money for this purpose if he will practise economy in other things. If economy is the policy on which his government was elected; if that is the policy of the Liberal government, I would suggest that he practise it a little. Take for instance the expenditures on the Governor General s office, Rideau Hall and so forth: this year it cost nearly $441,000 and since the present government took office there has been a steady increase. Surely we could cut that in two and save a quarter of a million dollars. These figures are not final, because we spend on vice-regal oars a great deal of money which is charged up to the Canadian National Railways and which does not show in the public accounts. Last year we spent $149,000 on the citadel at Quebec. This has been discussed here so often that I do not wish to weary the house with it now, but the figures are startling. Their Excellencies, I understand, spend only about two or three weeks in the summer at the citadel, and yet we find this enormous expenditure of money. Let me give one or two items in the list of expenditures for the Quebec citadel, taken from the Auditor General's report for 1908-29:
Carpet, 1,8719 yards	 $10,036.09
(Purchased from the Brinton-Peterborough Carpet Company, Peterborough.)
There is also an item for renovating and plastering the ballroom, at a cost of $7,712. It seems to me that when women and children are suffering because of unemployment in this country, we could very well do without these expenditures. The ballroom, I suppose, would be used only two or three times in twelve months. If the Prime Minister would go over these expenditures, he would easily find where he could save money enough to relieve unemployment without dipping into the treasury.
Take the expenditure on automobiles for the government, which was mentioned by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). That expenditure has 'been increasing steadily year after year, and the Auditor General year after year has been complaining about it. May I read a note, under the heading of automobiles and operating costs, in the introduction to the public accounts of 1928-29. The Auditor General states:
The total expenditure in connection with new automobiles and automobile repairs, renewals, etc., but not including cost of gasoline and lubricants, amounted to $634,549.10, an increase of $92,622.46. or 17 per cent over the expenditure of 1927-28.
The Auditor General goes on to comment on that increased expenditure and to plead for a reduction. He made the same sort of comment in the public accounts of last year. He complained of a similar increase over the

Unemployment-Mr. Brady
year before. I commend that to the consideration of the Prime Minister as a means of saving money to provide for the relief of the needy unemployed without increasing taxation at all. Undeniably there is unemployment in the cities and destitution on many of our farms. As a matter of fact, in western Canada to-day the land is rapidly passing out of the hands of those who toil on it. I do not know about the eastern provinces, but in western Canada landlordism and tenantry is almost as bad as it is in Europe. Those are conditions that we dislike to mention, but there they are, staring us in the face, and there is no use running away from them.
I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) as to the effect of poverty itself. Some people are accused of a lack of thrift, but their condition more often than not is the effect of poverty rather than the cause of it.


Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with very much pleasure to support the amendment of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and his plea that immediate action be taken by the government in regard to unemployment.
Unemployment is not confined to Canada. It is a problem w'hich we must all acknowledge belongs to every country in the world, and it is receiving the attention of statesmen everywhere and of legislatures the world over. In Canada we see, on the one hand, every mark of prosperity and wealth; we see millions of dollars passing in and out of the country for imports and exports; we see our trade and commerce expanding; we see thousands of our citizens living in security and sometimes in the lap of luxury; but, on the other hand, standing idle in Canada to-day are hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens, the very rank and file who are producing the wealth from which the nation benefits. They are physically able and willing to work, but the opportunity for work is not there. Others of our citizens, though at present engaged in work, have at all times the dread of unemployment hanging over their heads like the sword of Damocles. These, Mr. Speaker, are just the simple facts. The fear of unemployment is the most tragic and appalling problem that besets the great mass of men and women to-day. It is the paramount evil in the workman's life. His livelihood, his savings, his family, everything that is dear to him, is very often threatened by unemployment. His one great fear is that he will be out of work. The right to work, the right to get a fair wage for work, the right to earn 
the necessities of life, is the privilege of every man. It is based both upon divine and civil law. The causes of unemployment the world over are so numerous and varied that it would be impossible for me to enumerate them. I shall therefore attempt to speak only of the causes of unemployment in Canada itself as I see them, and before I conclude I shall offer what I believe to be the solution of this problem, or one that will at least reduce unemployment to the minimum in Canada.
We have the common accidents of life. We have sickness. We have casual and seasonal unemployment. We have the irregularity of large public works being carried on at intervals by the provinces and by the federal government. We have the closing down of industrial plants. We have new industrial methods developed in the interests of efficiency to increase output, with a consequent decrease in the number of workmen employed. We have likewise within Canada to-day the slow but steady destruction of our primary and sometimes of our secondary industries. We see this country being flooded by manufactured goods in an enormous volume, the great majority of which could be manufactured here. We are sending out millions of dollars-nine hundred million dollars went to the United States last year-for manufactured goods. Seventy per cent of this could be kept within Canada to build up our industries. I am simply stating facts as I know them. Unemployment, greater or less, must always be found as the natural corollary of our modern industrial system. Never can unemployment be eliminated; it is a by-product, it is the very shadow of our modern industrial life. But by a study of the causes of unemployment in any given locality, in any given province, or throughout the whole Dominion, and by the cooperation of the employer and employee, the provincial and the federal governments, ways and means can be found to reduce this unemployment to a minimum.
To make my position clear on this matter,
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that I firmly believe it is a sacred duty, incumbent upon this parliament, sedulously to watch for and provide ways and means to cope with the unemployment problem which is increasing in this country to-day to such an- alarming extent. In the middle ages, labour was mostly agricultural and held in bondage by the feudal lords, but in the towns and cities it was controlled by the guilds. Later the state took control and began to interest itself in labour. You will recall that in England the Statute of Labourers was enacted which restrained workmen from wandering around the country, and likewise set the rate of wages,

Unemployment-Mr. Brady
and these wages they were obliged to accept. But with the rise and development of modern industry the whole aspect of labour changed, with the result that the character of the relationship changed, and it has been recognized by every commisison that has investigated labour conditions that the obligation to reduce unemployment rests, not upon a municipality, not upon any particular division of the commonwealth, but upon the commonwealth as a whole. In other words, unemployment is a national reseponsibility. Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) endeavoured to limit the significance of the word "national", just as later he also endeavoured to limit the significance of the word "state," to a province merely. I do not accept the limitation, Mr. Speaker, and I feel there are many reasons why this parliament should take part in reducing unemployment throughout the whole dominion. In proportion as the state receives wealth from labour and from industry in the form of income and other taxes, and as the federal Minister of Labour is concerned with labour throughout all the provinces, it is but right that this parliament should take appropriate action so that every man who is physically fit and willing to work should be given at least a fair chance of obtaining employment at good wages.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to get before the house what I believe is recognized by the great masses of the people to-day to be fundamental. Our present government-I want to get that home-our present government is responsible for something that is not only a tragedy, it is a shameful blot upon our fair Dominion. In what way, I am asked. I reply, many of Canada's sons and daughters are leaving the country, as every hon. member knows, simply because they cannot get employment within her boundaries. And sir, for the last two days we have been trying to shift the responsibility for unemployment and throw it to the four winds of heaven for the league of nations or some other body to take up. I was surprised when I heard the argument advanced that unemployment was a matter that did not concern this parliament. England is a thousand years old, and is it any wonder that she should have unemployment; is it any wonder that after those many years with her intensive industrial life that unemployment prevails there? But when you come to Canada, a young country of great natural resources, to which the eyes of Britain are looking in the hope that Canada will assist in solving some of her problems, what do we find? We find that Canada herself is unable to cope with this problem of unemployment. I
think we should bow down our heads in shame to be paraded before the empire and before the world at this hour as a country unable to cope with it. Is it not humiliating to reflect that with our small population and our great natural resources we cannot give to our ablebodied, physically fit men the right which is theirs to do a day's work and so get an assurance that at least they will be able to provide their wives and children with the necessaries of life?
I have heard yet no argument advanced by the Prime Minister, nor by the Minister of Labour, nor by any other hon. gentleman that would cause me to change my view that unemployment is a national problem, that is, a problem for the federal authorities to deal with. In their efforts to shift the responsibility to the provinces the municipalities they have moved around in a large circle, but on no occasion have they come out and declared the faith that is in them. I honour a noble opponent, I respect the man who differs from me politically, but I want to know exactly the basis of his political faith. During the past year while crossing Canada I have watched deputations of the unemployed and on the city streets I have noted the crowds waiting patiently for work, and the sorry state of affairs has always brought to my mind a countryman of mine, Oliver Goldsmith, who at a period when something similar was happening to his country, wrote these lines:
111 fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay:
Princes and lords may flourish, or may fade;
A breath can make them, as a breath has made;
But a bold peasantry, their country's pride,
When once destroyed, can never be supplied.
More governments have been defeated by failing properly to estimate public opinion upon vital questions concerning the wellbeing, happiness and material success of the people than from any other cause. I wish to say to-night that such a question is before the people of Canada, one which concerns their well-being, their material success and their happines. I may recall to the house an occasion somewhat similar to this in 1910 when Sir Wilfrid Laurier, doubting the advice of his friends, decided to go west and learn the state of public opinion in those western provinces. Therefore, in the months of July and August he crossed western Canada. Here was a popular man, one who had won the respect of all, welcomed by foe as well as by friend through the years of his political life. What did he find? He found that instead of admiration he was received with cold criticism; in place of applause he received silence, and

Unemployment-Mr. Brady
the result was that before the election of 1911 came he anticipated exactly what was going to take place. He found at that time, as I believe the present government will find when it goes to the country, that the voice of public opinion was against the policy which his government was pursuing. Agriculture is the key industry of Canada; my friends opposite will no doubt admit that. Moreover, it is not merely a key industry; it is a vital factor in times of national defence; it is at all times the basis of material welfare of the people of Canada. That being the case, let us look at a few very important facts to illustrate what I said a moment ago. Agriculture, the great primary industry of Canada, has been strangled by the action of this government. Do you want proof to show where we are drifting in regard to this basic industry? If that is what you wish, I will quote figures. In the last ten years the animal products of Canadian farms have decreased from $156,000,000 down to $55,000,000. In 1920 Canada was an exporter of every principal animal product, but to-day our Dominion is an importer of bacon, butter, mutton and lamb. The export of other animal products at the present time is a mere fraction of the 1920 figure. An outstanding fact is, to my mind, that for the first time in forty years Canada's exports of bacon to Great Britain are nil; yet the United Kingdom imports annually over 900,000,000 pounds of that particular commodity.
Why pursue what we all know to be the case? It would not be in order for me to attempt to alter the viewpoint of those who persist in saying that the fiscal policy of a country plays no part in the solution of the unemployment problem. I wish to say that if we could keep within Canada 60 per cent of the $900,000,000 we paid out during the last year for manufactured goods imported from the United States we would not have an unemployment problem to-day, and we would not be faced with the amendment which is presented for our consideration. On that point I wish to say that as far as I can see, after reading the steps that have been taken in other countries in regard to social legislation and unemployment insurance, there is merit in the proposal. It draws to the attention of the government, the employer and everybody concerned, the importance of solidifying industry. Marine and fire insurance, when first introduced, did not have the expected results which were later realized, yet we find over two-thirds of the expected fires did not take place; the same may apply to unemployment insurance. If that be the case I see great merit in this particular insurance 
scheme. Yet we heard the Prime Minister put forth yesterday the argument which precluded the possibility of this parliament having anything to do with the relief of the unemployment problem.
Before I speak about the Prime Minister I would like to say a word to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), and I shall try to speak in a way which, owing to his genial nature, he will understand. When he made the speech the other evening covering such a wide range of subjects, and to a great extent subjects which were very remote from the problem before him, I was reminded of an Irish story. An Irishman went to Australia, and while there he saw the Australian parakeet for the first time. It is a beautiful bird with golden plumage and variegated feathers. This particular bird was sitting in a tree, and the Irishman became so interested and absorbed in the beauty of the bird that he determined to catch it. As it was in the suburbs of the city he climbed the tree, and when about to put his hand on the bird he heard the remark, "Hello, what do you want?" The Irishman thereupon lifted his hat and said: "Oh, excuse me, sir, I thought you were a bird." Until the other evening I thought the Minister of Labour was the Minister of Labour, but now I would call him the Minister of laissez faire, because I think he very nicely went over a delicate problem and left it untouched.
Furthermore, coming to the speech of the Prime Minister, I think he did not realize the gravity of the situation as the people of Canada see it to-day. Before I go on with that point, I wish to draw attention to a state of unemployment which I know particularly well, and which exists in my own part of Canada. We have among the fishermen of British Columbia the finest and most daring body of men in the world. They are out on the stormy waters in the depths of winter, dashed and lashed by the infuriated gales, in quest of what? They are there in order to secure the rich products of the sea, bringing it into port in order that thousands of people in their luxurious and well looked after home3 can sit down and enjoy that food. What is this government doing for the fishermen on the Pacific coast? I will tell you, sir, that there is an immediate way to stop unemployment and to help Canadian men give a little more comfort to their wives and children, to which they are entitled. Why, sir, we always believed that beneath the British flag we found not merely justice and equity but consideration on the part of those who were in power. The fishermen of the coast, in their very own harbours, have to pay two cents a pound on halibut which is taken out m

Unemployment-Mr. Brady
bond and sent to the markets of the United States. Furthermore, they are being threatened with an extra 5 cents per pound on this frozen halibut. Right now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that if the Conservative party, to which I have the honour to belong, were in power it would not be more than twelve months before the men at present unemployed would be working, and in five years from now not merely would every man be employed but we could employ one million more of our own kith and kin. It is no use disguising the fact, sir, I will go further and say that under our present policy the government of this country, to use a simile understood by all, is taking the ship of state down a stream whose loud and resounding roar indicates that there are cataracts of danger ahead, not merely for Canada but for the empire as well. That is a statement the truth of which any man who wishes to examine matters will see for himself.
Now, sir, the next step is to turn to the Prime Minister's statement, and I wish to say that it astonished everyone. I see the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) would like a little story, so I shall tell him one. A gentleman was caught by his wife kissing the cook.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Charles Brady: Is that unparliamentary? His wife said to him: "John, you surprise me." He had a little more knowledge of grammar and of correct speech than she, so he replied "No, my dear; you are astonished, but I am surprised." When the Prime Minister last evening made to this house and flung to the four winds of Heaven the terrific pronouncement that he would not give five cents to a province that had a government that was not Liberal, I was astonished, and I want to say that the very dykes that he has been standing behind, and which were supporting the Liberal party in Canada, were swept away by public opinion, and the flood waters of indignant public opinion were let loose over the Liberal party. I do not want to exaggerate, but I will tell you the effect produced by the words of the Prime Minister last evening. He stood representing the Liberal party, which is the supposed party of freedom for democracy, but no oligarch of Russia; not even Alexander of Macedonia, that savage king; not the tyrants of Syracuse; not even the Roman dictators ever held a bludgeon over the heads of their people equal to the threat made by the Prime Minister last evening. Why, sir, he delivered an ultimatum last night to Canada, and as he stood there I was reminded of days during the time of the ancient Roman empire,
when the plebeians of that time were whipped by officers and forced to cry out in the market place, "Non habemus regem, nisi Caesarem" in other words, "we shall have no king but Caesar." They were flogged to declare before the world that everything was all right with Rome. Last evening the people of six provinces that are not flaunting the flag of Liberalism were told to cry out, "we shall have no king but the Prime Minister, who sits in Ottawa to-day." That is exactly the message that he tried to inculcate; and now I see a little behind the scenes. Is it any wonder that in districts and constituencies that were not supporting the Prime Minister we found it most difficult to obtain from the Minister of Public Works the needed requirements which would help unemployment in those parts of Canada? This is an absolute corollary to the statement of the Prime Minister. He said last evening something so unusual in the annals of the great Liberal party, something so unusual in the annals of every great party of any country, that we must wipe out this insult if we are true to our principles and to that which we hold highest and dearest. That is, that no matter what party we belong to, the party of power will be impartial and will do what they feel they should do, whether or not the representatives of any part of Canada belong to that party. That is what our party would do, and furthermore I wish to say that if I could not believe that the Conservative party when they come into power would be able to bring back Canada to her righful place within the empire I would unhesitatingly sever my connection with that party. Should this government remain in power longer we shall have gone too far down the precipice and it will be difficult to retrace our steps and build up this country. This offers food for reflection. Unemployment is undoubtedly something which should concern us all; it should be paramount to every other consideration.
The great mass of the ten million people in this country, those who rear their families and give stalwart sons to Canada, are waiting to see what political party is able to build up this Dominion and take from our natural resources that which will enable them to live. What a pallid page is offered for the people of Canada to read in the record of the Liberal party during the last six years! It is a pallid, wane page of weak endeavour and of hopeless incapacity to realize the great possibilities open to them had they been true and faithful to their trust.
When our party returns to power, as I believe it will, it will be for the salvation of
Unemployment-Mr. Bird

Canada and the empire. I have no political bias, but I believe, as the majority of Canadians believe, that the future destiny of Canada, at least for some years to come, is linked and bound up with the Conservative party.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker, I always listen with great pleasure to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Brady). If the force of his argument were equal to the charm of his Irish eloquence, it would be unnecessary for me to rise in my place, but I am afraid that something more needs to be said.
Representing as I do a constituency which is speedily becoming industrialized, I could not permit this opportunity to pass without giving my point of view. At the outset I iesire to say that I will endeavour to make my remarks as uncritical as possible, but I would like to use what persuasive powers I have to influence the government to change its attitude on this question. I think that what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) have said is true, that Canada, like most countries, needs to be educated regarding this question. I am afraid that the fact that we are not educated has had some bearing upon the attitude adopted by the government. It seems to me that a government should be a leader of public opinion as well as a follower. I have said already this session that governments tend to follow the line of least resistance, and I am afraid that the unemployed worker belongs to a class which is practically a political nonentity, an unorganized class, and one which has no means of bringing its political power to bear effectively upon this house. Possibly the unemployed themselves are to blame, but it seemed to me a very significant thing when I heard that Tom Moore, the leader of organized labour in this country, was not in favour of any move being taken along the lines of this amendment. Upon that fact I think there hangs a tale. The aristocrat of labour, like the government, has very little real feeling-


Peter Heenan: I know the hon. member does not desire to say anything which may be in error. I do not know that Mr. Moore ever has said that or has been accused of saying it. The only reference to that question is the fact that the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada endorsed the action of the government in not calling a conference.


Thomas William Bird: Still my point has force, that we have a class of workingmen in Canada which is not organized, a class which finds itself in the queue at the soup kitchen. These
	^
men are large in number, but they are not organized; they have no means of making their position felt in the house; they have no one to lobby for them in Ottawa.
The unorganized classes, whether they be farmers or labourers, must learn a lesson: that there is only one way in which they can get justice from the powers that be, namely, through organization. I see very little hope of the unemployed receiving consideration from any government until they become organized so that their diffused power may be focused. There is a good deal of inertia to be overcome among all classes in this country.
A few years ago a prominent public man in the United States said that if ever that country had a revolution it would be produced not by the bolsheviks but by the boneheads. The bonehead constitutes a very large class in any industrialized country, and that class is made up of many varieties. One variety is composed of people who are moved by crass stupidity in regard to social and economic matters. I have actually heard pious people quoting the Scriptures in order to prove that the solution of the unemployment problem was hopeless because the Author of Christianity once upon a time said that the poor will always be with us. That is one kind of attitude which still obtains in almost every industrialized country-a hopeless, stupid outlook upon this question. There is also what I would describe as the Pharisee in modern economic life, the man *who says: If a man is unemployed he has nobody to blame but himself; it is his own fault. Does anyone deny we have that class in Canada? You can find in every city and town the man who, with a superior air, says that if a man is unemployed it is his own fault. I remember years ago reading the life of Will Crooks, one of the first labour members at Westminster. That story of Will Crooks' life cured me of that attitude. He was a man representing the best type of British workman who in his young married life walked the streets of London day after day, and only by an extraordinary amount of will power saved himself from going over the precipice and becoming one of London's unemployables.
There are other attitudes which have been taken. There is the attitude taken by the Prime Minister the other day. I know the Prime Minister is not a stupid man; I would not classify him with people who are labouring under traditional views on this question, but just the same his speech was a real disappointment to me, a disappointment all the keener because some of us saw that speech on the background of the Prime Minister's

Unemployment-Mr. Bird
own mind, a mind that is illuminated with modern economic truth; and I say that a speech such as he delivered the other day was on that account all the more lurid in its deficiency. As I analysed the speech as he went along, I found he gave seven arguments against doing anything immediately for the unemployed in this country. Each of those arguments individually was to me very unconvincing. Collectively they lacked logical coherence; there was running through them no thread of reason. I have not time tonight to refer to them in detail and if I had it would possibly be superflous, because others have adequately dealt with them. Some of those arguments were very far-fetched. For instance the Prime Minister said that stressing unemployment conditions would act detrimentally upon the flow of capital to Canada. That is a far-fetched argument; it is an unworthy argument, because, after all, capital does not enter into the same category with suffering human beings. But from another standpoint, as someone said this evening, it is not right, it is not safe, to hide an evil. It is not safe to talk in quiet tones about something that , is festering in the body politic. When the Prime Minister said that, he reminded me of the refined old lady who died of gastric trouble. The reason she died was because she always told the doctor she had a pain in the chest; she was ashamed of saying where the pain really was. If we Canadians get into the habit of covering over, glozing over, the social evils that are corroding our national life, the possibilities are that those evils will presently become a focal point that will gradually poison our social life. A labouring class-and I dislike using that term-that is well taken care of, that is relieved of its fears, is in any country one of the things that will attract not only capital but everything else we desire to have as a country.
Some of the Prime Minister's arguments were, if not far-fetched, plausible. I am not going to enter into a discussion in regard to the British North America Act because I think that has been very well dealt with. But there was one argument that struck me as being altogether misplaced and it was this: the Prime Minister said:	If we yield to this
plea it will mean favouring one class of the community, namely, the labouring class, but the farming class and the professional class will be left out in the cold. I have only one way to answer that and it is this: that the attitude, the spirit, that is out to readjust industrial conditions in this country is the attitude, the spirit that will ultimately adjust
farming matters. Fundamentally the farmer and the industrial worker stand upon common ground. Any attempt to divide their interests can be successful only so long as those two classes do not understand wherein their interests lie. In fact, I cannot see any hope for either the farmer or the industrial worker until they understand the common ground upon which they stand. The spirit in which we in this comer are supporting the industrial worker is identical with the spirit in which we support the producer. After all, it is the attitude, the spirit, which counts.
As to responsibility, the Prime Minister, while recognizing the problem, tried to escape the responsibility. As I view the matter, as I have heard the causes of unemployment discussed in this debate, every cause of the condition we have been referring to points to the national parliament. The problem is a national one, in the only sense in which the word "national" can apply. I am not going to enumerate to-night the causes of unemployment because I would be merely going over ground that has already been traversed; but each cause that has been discussed during this debate resolves itself into a question of policy that belongs to the federal parliament. I do not know of any single cause of unemployment that belongs to any particular section. Take it, for instance, from the point of view of the Conservatives to our right. They say that unemployment is due to the policy of low tariffs that is formulated in this house. It seems to me that a Conservative government when in power would, by the very force of its own position, have to formulate a policy for unemployment. They recognize the unemployment problem as originating here. But the same logic applies to my friends the Liberals. However much they try to shirk the inference, we know that the enactment of a fiscal policy either one way or the other will displace labour in this country; there is no question about that. This house wields an instrument which is potent for good or ill to the labouring men. If you raise the tariff, you certainly put men out of work. If you lower the tariff, you certainly put men out of work.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Why?


Thomas William Bird: That question has been answered so frequently that I would have thought my hon. friend's education would have been, by this time, well advanced along that line. We cannot escape the logic of the situation. My hon. friend says that he represents labour in this house, and I accord to
Unemployment-Mr. Bird

him the honour which he claims for himself. Let me read the pronouncement of one of the most outstanding labour men at the present time. In my opinion he is one of the most sincere labour men in Great Britain, a man who has suffered a great deal for his principles. I refer to Hon. Mr. Lansbury. In regard to this very question that my hon. friend has interjected he saj's, speaking of the Labour government of which he is a member:
We also tackled the question of free trade and tariff reform, taking our stand that neither of these shibboleths could ever be a solution of the poverty problem. We pointed out that in this land, under free trade and free competition, women, children, even babies were exploited; that slums and workhouses, mental asylums, and all social disorders of our day were the accompaniments both of protection and free trade. We also proved that the state and municipal socialist action was absolutely necessary to curb the terrible social evils which, during the days of free trade and protection had grown up in the great industrial centres owing to the reckless manner in which trade and industry were carried on. We argued that neither tariffs nor free trade do secure decent standards of life for our people.
I think that is a sufficient answer to my hon. friend, because while I accord to him the privilege which he claims of representing labour in Canada, yet at the same time I think the Hon. George Lansbury is an authority equal with his own. I was intending to come to that point a little later.
My purpose at the present time was not to enter into a controversy on the tariff. I was pointing out that the government wields an instrument that may at any moment displace labour in this country. I am not speaking of the eventualities that may happen years from now. Any serious change in fiscal policy almost at once displaces labour from one end of the country to the other, and if this parliament has any human feeling at all it would never presume to make any such change unless it provided for the displacement of labour that would surely be one of the fruits of its policy. We are coming to a time when the people are going to demand such humane consideration on the part of parliaments. They say to parliaments: We are not so much concerned with your policies as with their effects upon human beings. We want protection for human beings.
I want to conclude my remarks by stressing that point. I would like to appeal to the humanity of the Prime Minister. I do not think from what I know of him that an appeal like that will be altogether lost. I am not one who mocks at the idealism of the Prime Minister. I think that it is one of the finest manifestations that we have in CanatMr. Bird.]
dian public life. The fact that it may not have borne fruit is a matter for further discussion, but the fact that we have a Prime Minister who does show some comprehensive knowledge of these problems is, I think, something gained. It is a starting point at any rate; but, of course, it ought not to stop there. I would like to appeal to the Prime Minister's idealism. I know that other appeals are perhaps obscured by considerations of party, by presuppositions that really do not relate to the human element. But clearly this is a matter of human importance. Here is something that concerns the immediate well-being of men, women and children.
There are in the final analysis only two kinds of economic theory in existence; there have been only two ever since men have exchanged products with one another. The first theory was crystallized into a doctrine over a hundred years ago, a theory which postulated that the way to make a country great and wealthy was to subordinate the individual to the state, that the only way to build up a country in grandeur, in material possessions, was to forget the individual, to subordinate him to the necessities of the state. The other theory was the reverse. It maintained that the true economics was the economics which subordinated the state of the individual.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: That is the protectionist theory.


Thomas William Bird: Unemployment-Mr. Bird

of political organization which when it attempts to make its appearance stultifies idealism. These conditions, however, cannot remain much longer. As far as the farmers of Canada are concerned I believe they are going to come forward with a type of political organization which will express their political aspirations more successfully than has been done in the past. It has not been done with much success in the past, I must admit, but it is only twenty-five years since the inception of the Labour party in England, and during that quarter of a century the Labour party, with its idealism and social ideals has fought with great success against entrenched privilege in England.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Wherein will the new
farmers' party differ from the other party?


Thomas William Bird: I am not taking much stock in the new farmers' party. I do not think the solution lies in any particular type of party; I think we have had enough lessons to satisfy us that the attempt to start new and pure parties is doomed to failure. I do say this, however, that the economic organizations of the west, such as the pool organization in Manitoba, have enlisted 37,000 fanners to act in cooperation. We have never experienced a more complete organization in Manitoba than the one we have at the present time. There are 37.000 farmers organized around the ideal of cooperation. In my opinion the farmers of Manitoba can afford to forget about party politics, because they have formed an organization which has more political power than any political party the west will ever produce. I wonder what special privilege will throw the gauntlet down to the cooperating farmers of western Canada; I know of no power in Canada which has sufficient political influence to do it.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member's time is up.


Mr. A. B. THOMPSON (East Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a clipping from the Toronto Globe of April 3, 1930. It is as follows:
No fewer than 188 homeless men were given shelter at the local gaol during March. This figure, according to police chief A. L. Church, is without precedent in the town's history.
This extract refers to the town of Orillia, and as that town is in my riding I would like to say that the men here referred to are not residents of Orillia. They are unfortunate men who are travelling from place to place in an attempt to find employment which is
[Mr. B.rd.l
denied them. Although guilty of no crime they are forced to spend their nights in gaol. I learned yesterday from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that even if the Dominion government were inclined to grant aid to the different provinces to help the unfortunate unemployed, these men would not receive any assistance. The reason is that they unfortunately live in the province of Ontario, a Conservative province and therefore subject to the exclusion mentioned by the Prime Minister. A man in Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan or New Brunswick would be in a similar plight. However, if a person similarly situated had the good fortune to live in the province of Quebec or Prince Edward Island but was unfortunate enough to be unemployed, he would receive such aid as might be afforded by this government. When have the free men of Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and other Conservative provinces lost the right to elect men of their own choice? Since when has the Prime Minister of Canada become so autocratic that he can arbitrarily dictate which provinces shall receive government aid for unemployed, and which provinces shall be refused that aid? Are the citizens of Ontario, the chief contributors to the public funds, to be denied the rights accorded to citizens of other provinces? May I suggest to the Prime Minister that as a public man, no matter how bitter his private views may be with respect to those politically opposed, he should remember the well known motto of " equal rights to all and special privileges to none."
I take it that one of the first duties of a government is to make such provision that work may be available to citizens of the country whose affairs it administers; that the men who live in that country may have employment and thus be enabled to maintain their homes and support their families. A nation cannot exist without people; people cannot exist without homes; homes cannot be maintained without money, and money can be obtained only by work. I have taken the trouble to look through the speech from the throne delivered at the begining of this session and placed before this house for its consideration, and I look in vain for a proposal which would hold out any hope for the unfortunate unemployed. Such proposals are always welcome, but they would be doubly welcome at this time of unemployment, stress and strain.
I look back upon the record of this government and I find that in many instances it has failed to live up to its responsibilities to the people. The Minister of Labour (Mr. APRIL 4, 1930
Unemployment-Mr. Thompson
Heenan) in his speech the other evening said that this government was having a ferry boat built in Canada in order to give work to Canadians. He told us that the government could have had this boat built more cheaply in England than in Canada. I am glad that the government is awakening to the fact that the people expect that every boat which is constructed to carry on the trade and commerce of this country and is the property of the Dominion government shall be built in this country, in Canadian shipyards, by Canadian workmen and with Canadian materials. The pity of it is that this government has been so slow to realize its duty in this regard. Within the past two or three years the government has had constructed abroad, instead of being built in Canada, a fleet of boats for use in the West Indies service. I have here the names of the boats with the cost of construction, as follows:
Lady Somers	 $1,737,138
Lady Rodney	 1,741,534
Lady Nelson	 1,541,230
Lady Hawkins	 1,544,757
Lady Drake	 1,548,101
That is a total of $8,112,762 which went out of the country, we have the boats, but they have our money. Had a proper patriotic Canadian policy been pursued, these boats would have been built in our own country; we would have the boats, and the money would have been circulated among our own people, giving employment to Canadian labourers and mechanics and providing a market for our merchants as well as for farm products. Some one may say, "Well, the boats would have cost more had they been built in Canada." That is possible, but as far as I am concerned I am in favour of a policy of having all government-owned vessels built in Canada, and in the case of these particular boats I understand that they could have been built in this country for practically the same money.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, nonsense.


Mr. MALCOLM:: No.


Alfred Burke Thompson: Well, I understand that quite a large part of the money expended on these boats was spent on extravagant and magnificent interior fittings, which could have been omitted, and boats of equal service could have been built here for practically the same amount. Then, even admitting that they would have cost a little more, that additional money would have been spent among our own people.


James Malcolm: I think it is only fair to inform my hon. friend that tenders were 2419-S3i
called for from both British and Canadian shipyards. If I recall correctly, the cost of building these ships in Canada would have been about 40 per cent more than the cost of building them in British yards. The argument used by Canadian National Steamships, who were to operate the ships and who own them, was that the cost of operating the boats at that much of an increase in the cost of construction would involve a heavy toll in respect to rates, and would bring about a national loss. My hon. friend is quite correct in saying that it is advisable to build in Canada, but at that time Canadian National Steamships thought the load would be too heavy.


Alfred Burke Thompson: I still stand by my position. Even if these boats had cost more they should have been built in Canada, because the additional money would have been kept in this country and distributed among our own people. We would have given employment to our own workingmen, and that is what the people of Canada want.
How are our Canadian shipyards to be kept in an efficient state if the work which they can reasonably expect to get is sent abroad? There is the matter of repairs to vessels. I understand that a Canadian boat can go into an American port and have necessary repairs done, and when she returns to Canada she pays a duty of 25 per cent on the value of the repairs. On the other hand, if an American boat enters a Canadian port and has certain repairs done, when she returns to the American side she has to pay a duty of 50 per cent on the value of those repairs. Why cannot we have a government that will protect the Canadian workmen to the same extent that the American government protects the American labourer? The psople of this country have spent an enormous amount of money in the construction of canals and other aids to navigation, and it is reasonable to expect that wherever possible the Canadian people should get something in return through the construction of ships and repairs to ships in Canada. I am told that in the United States a vessel cannot enter the coastwise trade unless she has been actually built, registered and documented there, but we know that many of our private owners, following the example of this government, have gone across the line and bought ships in that country, bringing them back to enter the trade here in competition with our own boats manufactured in Canada.
130S

Unemployment-Mr. Thompson
Now, Mr. Speaker, contrast the building of these boats abroad with the policy which was pursued by the Conservative government when ships were built for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. I understand these boats were practically all built in this country. They cost a lot of money; I believe the total was about $75,000,000, but out of that total $45,000,000 was spent in wages to Canadian workmen from Vancouver to Halifax, while $30,000,000 was spent for the purchase of Canadian material. Employment was given to our own shipyards, and the money was kept in this country. Everybody prospered by it; the labourer, the mechanic, the merchant, the farmer, all profited by this work being done in this country. That is a contrast between the policies pursued by the two different parties. Millions of dollars have been spent abroad in the construction of government-owned ships. In 1929, $31,000,000 was spent on agricultural implements imported from the United States, almost all of which could have been manufactured in this country. Is .that the way to help the unemployment situation here? Every day of the year we send out of Canada $2,500,000, chiefly to purchase American manufactured goods that could be made in this country. Is that the way to help the Canadian workman who has a home to maintain and children to clothe and feed? The closing of our woollen mills as a result of the tariff policy of this government threw out of employment men and women who had worked at that business, and also deprived the farmer of a market for his wool. Is that the way to help the unemployment situation? Why cannot we have more buying at home of Canadian manufactured goods? Imagine sending yearfy to the United States for manufactured goods $89 for every man, woman and child in Canada ! Why not take more pride in our own products; why not more loyalty to the goods manufactured in this country? I can well understand, Mr. Speaker, why there should be unemployment in over-populated countries whose natural resources have been depleted and exhausted, but in this young country of Canada, with its under-population and magnificent natural resources, there is no excuse or reason for that condition existing. If we had a proper fiscal policy, a proper national policy -Canada for the Canadians-unemployment would rapidly disappear and prosperity would return. The people of Canada shortly will be given an opportunity to settle this question, and all signs indicate that they are now realizing their responsibilities. When given that 
opportunity the people will speak in no uncertain terms, and a new era of prosperity will be ushered in with the advent of a new government. That famous declaration of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) that the death knell of protection had been sounded is going to sound the death knell of the present government.
On motion of Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, April 7, 1930